Influence of nonsuicidal <scp>self‐injury</scp> functions on suicide risk in individuals with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with eating disorders (EDs) display elevated rates of suicidality (i.e., suicidal ideation and behaviors) as well as nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) (e.g., self-harm behaviors without intent to die). NSSI-and particularly the functions of NSSI-predict suicidal ideation in general samples; however, to our knowledge, the relation between NSSI functions and suicidal ideation in ED populations has been unexplored. METHOD: This study examined whether specific functions of NSSI are relevant to suicidal ideation in a treatment-seeking sample of women with EDs (n = 100). Participants completed self-report measures of suicidal ideation, NSSI, and related psychopathology upon intake to an ED treatment program. RESULTS: Using the four-function model of NSSI, we found that intrapersonal and interpersonal-negative reinforcement, but not interpersonal-positive reinforcement functions, were related to suicidal ideation in women with EDs. Contrary to expectations, we did not find that endorsement of multiple NSSI functions was related to increased suicide risk. DISCUSSION: Findings imply that some, but not all, functions of NSSI may be relevant to suicide risk in individuals with EDs. Implications for further research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".