Examining harsh parenting as a moderator in the association between childhood irritability and adolescent suicidal behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood irritability increases the risk of later suicidal behaviors, but the moderators of this association have not been identified. We investigated harsh parenting as a moderator in the association of childhood irritability with adolescent suicide attempt and self-harm, and possible sex differences in these associations. METHOD: Data were from 9,480 children from the Millennium Cohort Study. We averaged parent ratings of child irritability and harsh parenting at ages 3, 5, and 7 years (range 1-3). Suicide attempt and self-harm were self-reported at age 17. Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations of irritability with suicide attempt and self-harm, adjusting for confounding factors. Interaction analyses were used to test the moderating role of harsh parenting and sex in these associations. RESULTS: Children with greater irritability scores were at increased risk to attempt suicide (OR=1.72, 95% CI=1.42-2.08). Interaction analyses suggested that this risk in males was elevated regardless of harsh parenting. However, high levels of harsh parenting interacted with irritability in increasing the risk of suicide attempt in females. Children with high irritability were also more at risk of self-harm (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03-1.31) but this association was not moderated by harsh parenting in either sex. CONCLUSION: Parental behaviors may play an important role in the pathway to suicide attempt of children with irritability, especially for females, who may have a heightened sensitivity to interpersonal stressors. Parenting interventions may be helpful in suicide prevention among females with irritability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".