MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410848793 · doi:10.2196/67745

Analyzing Trends in Suicidal Thoughts Among Patients With Psychosis in India: Exploratory Secondary Analysis of Smartphone Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

2025· article· en· W4410848793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ameya Bondre, Aashish Ranjan, Ritu Shrivastava, Deepak Tugnawat, Nirmal Chaturvedi, Anant Bhan, Snehil Gupta, Abhijit R. Rozatkar, Srilakshmi Nagendra, Siddharth Dutt, Soumya Choudhary, Preethi V. Reddy, Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, John A. Naslund, John Torous

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsSuicidal ideationMoodPositive and Negative Syndrome ScalePsychologyPsychosisPsychiatryPsychological interventionClinical psychologyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: India has the world's largest number of suicides, but there is little research on the trends in suicidal thoughts, especially for individuals with psychosis. More research is necessary to develop preventive interventions. Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) can assess dynamic symptoms, but most EMA studies are conducted in higher income settings and have shorter (≤1 month) follow-up periods. Objective: This study aimed to examine the duration of onset to offset of suicidal ideation (SI) in tertiary hospital outpatients with psychosis in India. Methods: This study is an exploratory, secondary analysis of smartphone EMA data nested within the ongoing "Smartphone Health Assessment for Relapse Prevention (SHARP)" project. Tertiary hospital outpatients (n=50) with early course schizophrenia at 2 socioculturally different sites in India were recruited and given the "mindLAMP" app for monitoring mood through daily EMA surveys. The mood survey matched the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire; the ninth item was used to define an instance of SI (score ≥1). A total of 14 patients with ≥1 SI instances who met the site-specific EMA survey use cutoff were included. We examined the between- and within-person variability in SI and computed the timescale of "episodic" SI (sequences of consecutive daily observations of SI score ≥1). Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was used to assess changes in psychosis symptoms and its relationship with the temporality of SI. Results: Over approximately 11 (SD 2.1) months of EMA reporting on average, 3253 mood surveys were filled by the 14 participants (median 213, IQR 147-256). A total of 521 instances of SI were reported. Monthly SI instances showed substantial within- and between-person variations. Timescale summary statistics revealed episodic SI patterns in 11 patients, with an average of 5.9 episodes (SD 4.4; range:1-14; n=65) with an episode lasting on average 2.5 days (SD 1.5; range:1-5.3; n=27). There was an average lag of approximately 59, 66, and 81 days between the time of the first drop in PANSS positive, negative, and general psychopathology scores, respectively, and the last reported SI instance. Results after imputation of missing data showed an average of 12.1 episodes and 228 days (average lag) between the first drop in PANSS scores and last reported SI. This indicated that SI was an enduring vulnerability subsequent to the beginning of clinical improvement in psychosis. Conclusions: Our study adds to the much-needed evidence base in India to measure the dynamics of suicidal thinking within an individual, for more targeted preventive interventions. Further steps in EMA research are highlighted such as the use of higher frequency "burst" surveys to assess the duration of an SI episode in hours or minutes, and inclusion of both active and passive SI markers to measure the timescale of suicidal thinking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→