Cognitive control impairment in suicide behaviors: what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of Stroop in suicide behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicidal behavior results from a complex interplay between stressful events and vulnerability factors, including cognitive deficits. Poorer performance on the Stroop task, a measure of cognitive control, has been associated with suicidal behavior in numerous studies. The objective was to conduct an updated systematic review of the literature on the Stroop task as a neuropsychological test of vulnerability to suicidal acts in patients with mood and other psychiatric disorders, while also looking at how the type (classic versus emotional) or the version (paper or computerized) of the Stroop task, as well as the characteristics of the patient (clinical population, age, sex) moderated the Stroop effect. METHODS: A search on Medline, Embase, PsycInfo databases, and article references was performed. 53 studies (6781 participants) met the selection criteria. Interference time and errors of the Stroop Test were assessed in at least 3 studies to be analyzed. Moderators, such as the type (classic versus emotional) of the Stroop task and the characteristics of the patient (clinical population, age, sex) were also assessed. RESULTS: Interference time on Stroop performance was lower in suicide attempters than in patient controls (g = 0.20; 95%CI [0.10-0.30]) and healthy controls (g = 0.79; 95 % CI [0.29-1.29]), with patient controls scoring lower than healthy controls (g = -0.63; 95%CI [-1.01-0.25]). This was moderated by age and having a mood disorder. In terms of interference errors, suicide attempters performed worse than healthy controls (g = 0.57; 95%CI [0.01-1.15]) but did not perform differently from patient controls (g = 0.20; 95 % CI [-0.06-0.45]). Patient controls also did not score differently than healthy controls (g = -0.18; 95 % CI [-0.54-0.18]). There was a significant moderation effect for the type (i.e., original Stroop task) and version (i.e., paper format) of the Stroop task, and for some characteristics of the patient (i.e., older patients and having a mood disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive control impairment was associated with a history of suicidal behavior in patients, especially in older populations and those with mood disorders, however this result was moderated by outcome measure (interference time vs. errors), the type (i.e., original Stroop task) and the version (i.e., paper format) of the Stroop task. Cognitive control processes may be an important factor of suicidal vulnerability. Choosing the right neurocognitive test in the right population to detect suicide vulnerability is important direction for future research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".