Associations of rumination with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts amongst individuals with major depressive disorder: A 12-month longitudinal study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the longitudinal associations of rumination with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Participants were derived from the Depression Cohort in China study (DCC). Those who completed at least one follow-up visit during the 12 months were included in the analysis. Dimensions of rumination including brooding and reflection were each measured using five items of the Ruminative Responses Scale. Suicidal ideation was assessed using the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation. Suicide attempts were also assessed and all were analyzed with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Our final sample included 532 participants aged 18 to 59 years (mean [SD], 26.91 [6.94] years) consisting of 148 (27.8%) males and 384 (72.2%) females. After adjusting for temporal trend and potential confounders, individuals with higher levels of reflection were more likely to report suicidal ideation (AOR =1.11, 95% CI:1.01-1.22). However, no statistically significant association was found between brooding and suicidal ideation (AOR =1.06, 95% CI:0.96-1.17). Conversely, individuals with higher levels of brooding were more likely to report suicide attempts (AOR =1.13, 95% CI:1.02-1.24), while no statistically significant association was observed between reflection and suicide attempts (AOR =0.91, 95% CI:0.82-1.01). CONCLUSION: Rumination reflects a disturbance in cognitive emotional processing and manifests in different dimensions. Our findings suggest that high levels of reflection and brooding may be associated with a higher likelihood of having suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, respectively. However, it should be interpreted with caution, given that effect sizes are small.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".