Hallucinations as a risk marker for suicidal behaviour in individuals with a history of sexual assault: a general population study with instant replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Research has shown a strong relationship between hallucinations and suicidal behaviour in general population samples. Whether hallucinations also index suicidal behaviour risk in groups at elevated risk of suicidal behaviour, namely in individuals with a sexual assault history, remains to be seen. Aims We assessed whether hallucinations were markers of risk for suicidal behaviour among individuals with a sexual assault history. Methods Using the cross-sectional 2007 ( N = 7403) and 2014 ( N = 7546) Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys, we assessed for an interaction between sexual assault and hallucinations in terms of the odds of suicide attempt, as well as directly comparing the prevalence of suicide attempt in individuals with a sexual assault history with v. without hallucinations. Results Individuals with a sexual assault history had increased odds of hallucinations and suicide attempt compared to individuals without a sexual assault history in both samples. There was a significant interaction between sexual assault and hallucinations in terms of the odds of suicide attempt. In total, 14–19% of individuals with a sexual assault history who did not report hallucinations had one or more suicide attempt. This increased to 33–52% of individuals with a sexual assault history who did report hallucinations (2007, aOR = 2.85, 1.71–4.75; 2014, aOR = 4.52, 2.78–7.35). Conclusions Hallucinations are a risk marker for suicide attempt even among individuals with an elevated risk of suicidal behaviour, specifically individuals with a sexual assault history. This finding highlights the clinical significance of hallucinations with regard to suicidal behaviour risk, even among high-risk populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".