Suicidal ideation and attempts in brain tumor patients and survivors: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Subsequent to a diagnosis of a brain tumor, psychological distress has been associated with negative effects on mental health as well as suicidality. The magnitude of such impact has been understudied in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of a brain tumor on suicidality (both ideation and attempts). Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched for relevant peer-reviewed journal articles on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to October 20, 2022. Studies investigating suicide ideation and/or attempt among patients with brain tumors were included. Results: Our search yielded 1,998 articles which were screened for eligibility. Seven studies consisting of 204,260 patients were included in the final review. Four studies comprising 203,906 patients (99.8%) reported elevated suicidal ideation and suicide attempt incidence compared with the general population. Prevalence of ideation and attempts ranged from 6.0% to 21.5% and 0.03% to 3.33%, respectively. Anxiety, depression, pain severity, physical impairment, glioblastoma diagnosis, male sex, and older age emerged as the primary risk factors associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempts. Conclusion: Suicidal ideation and attempts are increased in patients and survivors of brain tumors compared to the general population. Early identification of patients exhibiting these behaviors is crucial for providing timely psychiatric support in neuro-oncological settings to mitigate potential harm. Future research is required to understand pharmacological, neurobiological, and psychiatric mechanisms that predispose brain tumor patients to suicidality.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it