Transdiagnostic alterations in white matter microstructure associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviours in the ENIGMA Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviours consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have suggested that alterations in white matter (WM) microstructure are implicated in suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, findings of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies have been inconsistent. In this large-scale mega-analysis conducted by the ENIGMA Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviours (ENIGMA-STB) consortium, we examined WM alterations associated with STBs. Data processing was standardised across sites, and resulting WM microstructure measures (fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, mean diffusivity and radial diffusivity) for 25 WM tracts were pooled across 40 cohorts. We compared these measures among individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis and lifetime history of suicide attempt ( n =652; mean age=35.4±14.7; female=71.8%), individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis but no STB (i.e., clinical controls; n =1871; mean age=34±14.8; female=59.8%), and individuals with no mental disorder diagnosis and no STB (i.e., healthy controls; n =642; mean age=29.6±13.1; female=62.9%). We also compared these measures among individuals with recent suicidal ideation ( n =714; mean age=36.3±15.3; female=66.1%), clinical controls ( n =1184; mean age=36.8±15.6; female=63.1%), and healthy controls ( n =1240; mean age= 31.6±15.5; female=61.0%). We found subtle but statistically significant effects, such as lower fractional anisotropy associated with a history of suicide attempt, over and above the effect of psychiatric diagnoses. These effects were strongest in the corona radiata, thalamic radiation, fornix/stria terminalis, corpus callosum and superior longitudinal fasciculus. Effect sizes were small (Cohen’s d < 0.25). Recent suicidal ideation was not associated with alterations in WM microstructure. This large-scale coordinated mega-analysis revealed subtle regional and global alterations in WM microstructure in individuals with a history of suicide attempt. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm whether these alterations are a risk factor for suicidal behaviour.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".