Cognitive and behavioral factors in the chronification of suicidal behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevance. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Suicidal behavior is a complex phenomenon that includes suicidal thoughts, intentions and actions; and those actions do not always lead to death, but often turn into chronic suicidal behavior. The study of the factors in chronification of suicidal behavior is necessary for the development of evidence-based programs for the prevention of repeated suicide attempts. Aim of study. is to compare cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with stress in patients with single suicide attempts and chronic suicidal behavior. The hypothesis of the study is that in patients with repeated suicide attempts, destructive cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with stress are more pronounced. Materials and methods. The study included 119 patients treated at the somatopsychiatric and toxicology departments, 60 patients after the primary suicide attempt, 59 – after repeated ones. Patients were asked to complete the following procedures: Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1961; N.V. Tarabrina, 2001), Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck, 1961; Tarabrina, 2001), Rumination Scale (Treynor W. et al., 2003; adaptation by O.D. Pugovkina et al., 2021), Alexithymia Scale (Toronto Alexithymia Scale G.J. Taylor et al., 1985; adaptation by Starostina E.G. et al. 2009), COPE Inventory (Ch.S. Carver et al., 1989; adaptation by P.A. Ivanov and N.G. Garanyan, 2013). Results. Patients after repeated suicide attempts, compared with patients who made the first attempt, are more likely to be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, have more pronounced symptoms of depression and suicidal readiness, higher rates of ruminative thinking and alexithymia — reflecting a deceptive cognitive style, — as well as indicators of the use of destructive behavioral strategies for coping with stress in the form of various types of avoidance behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".