Suicidality and mood: the impact of trends, seasons, day of the week, and time of day on explicit and implicit cognitions among an online community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of research have established seasonality effects on completed and attempted suicides, with rates increasing in spring. Little advancements have been made to explain this phenomenon, with most studies focusing almost exclusively on the number of suicide attempts and deaths. Using more than six years of data collected among a US, UK, and Canadian online community sample (N > 10,000), we used newly developed Prophet forecasting and autoregressive-integrated moving average time-series models to examine the temporal dynamics of explicit and implicit self-harm cognitions. We created three groups (past suicide attempters; suicide ideation and/or non-suicidal self-injury; no previous self-harm, suicidal thoughts, or behaviors). We found a general increase of negative self-harm cognitions across the six years and seasonality effects for mood and desire to die, particularly among those who previously made a suicide attempt. Negative explicit self-harm cognitions peaked in winter (December), with implicit self-harm showing a lagged peak of two months (February). Moreover, daily negative self-harm cognitions consistently peaked around 4-5 am, with implicit cognitions again showing a lagged effect (1-hour). Limitations include the volunteer sample not being representative and the cross-sectional nature of the data being unable to separate between-subject and within-subject structural trends in the time series. Our findings show that negative explicit and implicit cognitions precede the rise in suicidal behaviors in spring. We proposed a conceptual model of seasonal suicide risk that may offer fertile ground for theoretical advancements, including implications for clinical risk assessment and public policies regarding the availability of health services.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".