DSM-5 suicidal behavior disorder: a systematic review of research on clinical utility, diagnostic boundaries, measures, pathophysiology and interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It has been a decade since Suicidal Behavior Disorder (SBD) was introduced in Section III of the DSM-5 under "Conditions for Further Study". SBD is chiefly characterized by a self-initiated sequence of behaviors believed at the time of initiation to cause one's own death and occurring in the last 24 months. Aims: To systematically review empirical studies on SBD to identify primary research themes and promising future research directions. Method: A search of empirical articles on SBD published between May 2013 and March 2023 was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Screening of 73 records by two independent raters yielded 14 eligible articles. The primary research themes identified from these articles included clinical utility of SBD to predict future suicide risk, association of SBD with closely related disorders, psychometric properties of SBD measures, pathophysiology of SBD, and the effectiveness of interventions for people with SBD. Conclusion: Understanding of SBD has slowly progressed since its introduction a decade ago and has mainly been applied in research to define study groups displaying suicidal behavior. The clinical utility of SBD for predicting future suicide risk is low and more research is needed to understand measurement of the diagnosis and its distinctiveness from related disorders and other self-harming behaviors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".