Decision‐making biases in suicide attempters with major depressive disorder: A computational modeling study using the balloon analog risk task (BART)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last decade, suicidality has been increasingly theorized as a distinct phenomenon from major depressive disorder (MDD), with unique psychological and neural mechanisms, rather than being mostly a severe symptom of MDD. Although decision-making biases have been widely reported in suicide attempters with MDD, little is known regarding what components of these biases can be distinguished from depressiveness itself. METHODS: Ninety-three patients with current MDD (40 with suicide attempts [SA group] and 53 without suicide attempts [NS group]) and 65 healthy controls (HCs) completed psychometric assessments and the balloon analog risk task (BART). To analyze and compare decision-making components among the three groups, we applied a five-parameter Bayesian computational modeling. RESULTS: Psychological assessments showed that the SA group had greater suicidal ideation and psychological pain avoidance than the NS group. Computational modeling showed that both MDD groups had higher risk preference and lower ability to learn and adapt from within-task observations than HCs, without differences between the SA and NS patient groups. The SA group also had higher loss aversion than the NS and HC groups, which had similar loss aversion. CONCLUSIONS: Our BART and computational modeling findings suggest that psychological pain avoidance and loss aversion may be important suicide risk factor that are distinguishable from depression illness itself.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".