Prevalence and Correlates of Non-Suicidal Self-Injuring Youth Who Do Not Endorse Suicidal Ideation: Prévalence et corrélation de l’automutilation non suicidaire chez des jeunes qui n’ont pas d’idées suicidaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a common behaviour in youth with mental disorder and in the general population. While NSSI is an important predictor of suicide attempts, not all youth with NSSI experience this outcome. The objective of this study is to report on the overlap between NSSI and suicidal ideation or attempt among Canadian youth self-reporting these behaviours in the general population to define a group of youth who engage in NSSI alone. This group of youth may represent a unique clinical phenotype. Methods We used data from 14–17 year olds ( N = 2,576) from the 2014 Ontario Child Health Study, a province-wide, cross-sectional, epidemiologic study of child health and mental disorder. Based on their responses to questions about past year experiences of suicidal thoughts and behaviours including NSSI, 6 mutually exclusive groups were created reflecting their differing profiles of suicidal thoughts and behaviours. These groups were compared to each other on socio-demographic and symptom characteristics. Results A total of 9.2% of youth reported NSSI, and half of these youth endorsed NSSI alone (without suicidal ideation or attempts). Both groups had significantly more females. Compared to other groups of youth endorsing suicidal thoughts and behaviours, the NSSI alone group had lower symptoms of mental disorder in all domains except for social anxiety symptoms. They also had the lowest perceived need for help of all groups. Conclusions About half of youth who self-harm do so without suicidal intent, and some for as long as 1 year during adolescence. Further prospective study of youth with NSSI alone is needed, to determine symptom stability as well as incident more risky suicidal behaviour before recommendations regarding the appropriateness of minimal medical or psychological intervention for youth who engage in this behaviour can be considered. There also are important sex differences in NSSI that deserve additional prospective study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".