Suicidal behaviors in patients with chronic physical illness: A test on the interpersonal theory of suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The unalleviated burden of chronic physical illness (CPI) increases the risk of suicidal behaviors (SB) in affected individuals. This study tested the interpersonal theory of suicide (ITS) in patients with CPI. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal diseases were recruited from two hospitals in South Korea. Data from 257 participants who completed Time (T) 1 and T2 surveys were analyzed. Hierarchical regression analyses for passive and active suicide ideation (PSI and ASI), and suicide plans and attempts (SP and SA) at both time points were conducted. RESULTS: Interpersonal theory of suicide hypotheses were partially supported. Even accounting for factors such as depression, anxiety, and lifetime SA, some main and interaction effects of the ITS constructs explained SB in a cross-sectional examination, but to a lesser degree in a longitudinal examination that controlled for T1 SB. PB was a consistent correlate of SB. TB was also relevant, as PB-SA association was significant among participants with high TB both times. ASI was associated with SP and SA at T1, and the ASI-SP association at T1 was stronger at a high CS level. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest the relevance of ITS constructs that warrant attention to prevent SB in patients with CPI.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".