Childhood trauma increases vulnerability to attempt suicide in adulthood through avoidant attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood trauma and affective disorders are known risk factors for adult suicidal behavior. Studies have shown a mediating effect of insecure attachment on the effect of childhood trauma and suicidal behavior but so far it is not clear whether this effect is related to an attachment dimension (anxiety, avoidance). AIM: The present study sought to examine the mediating effect of attachment anxiety and avoidance on suicidal behavior. METHODS: We analyzed data on childhood trauma, attachment style, depression severity, presence of prior suicide attempts and current suicide ideation from 96 patients diagnosed with an affective disorder. Two mediation analyses were conducted to assess the effect of childhood trauma on 1) prior suicide attempts and 2) current suicidal ideation through its effect on attachment. RESULTS: = 0.0120, 95%-CI [0.0031, 0.0276]). However, only emotional abuse had a direct influence on suicidal ideation (c' = 0.0273, p < 0.01) without any indirect effect of anxious or avoidant attachment. LIMITATIONS: Variables were not assessed in a prospective way and sample size was small. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals with avoidant attachment and childhood trauma are likely to present a high suicide risk. Since avoidant attachment is associated with altered perceptions and eventual rejection of social support, we recommend to screen for attachment early and to engage patients in therapeutical approaches focusing on the client-therapist alliance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".