Average ages of onset and time to transition between self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: Retrospective evidence from two developmentally distinct samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicidal thoughts and behaviors often emerge in a predictable sequence, with suicidal ideation (SI) preceding planning, and planning preceding actions. Few studies, however, have considered the timing and duration of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) in these transitions. Accordingly, this study examined: 1) the developmental sequencing of NSSI, SI and suicide attempts, and 2) whether age of onset or duration predict transitions from NSSI to other SITB, and from SI to NSSI. METHODS: 704 first-year students from a mid-sized Canadian university (Sample 1) and 2095 adults from an online research volunteer panel (Sample 2) completed the Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview self-report, which assessed the presence, age of onset, and recency of SITB. RESULTS: NSSI and SI typically onset before age 15, while suicide planning and attempt usually began at or after age 15. Transition from NSSI to SI was likeliest in the first year after NSSI onset. Transition from NSSI to suicide attempt was likeliest in the second and third year after NSSI onset in Sample 1, and up to four years after NSSI onset in Sample 2. Early (before age 13) and late (after age 16) onsets of NSSI predicted higher odds of transitioning from NSSI to SI or attempt. Transition from SI to NSSI was likeliest in the first two years after SI onset and when SI began before age 13. CONCLUSIONS: The first year after NSSI or SI onset are critical for transitions to other SITB. Targeted prevention and monitoring should be considered for people who recently initiated NSSI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".