Impulsivity in Adolescents with MDD and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury: A Multimodal Assessment Using Psychometric, Behavioral, and Neurophysiological Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate multidimensional impulsivity and its neuroelectrophysiological correlates in adolescents with depression and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). METHODS: A case-control study was conducted including three groups: depressed adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI group), depressed adolescents without NSSI (non-NSSI group), and healthy controls (HCs group). The Ottawa Self-Injury Questionnaire was administered to assess NSSI behaviors in depressed participants and to quantify NSSI severity within the NSSI group. Impulsivity was evaluated using a multimodal approach, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), a go/no-go task, and event-related potentials (ERPs), with particular focus on the N2 and P3 components. RESULTS: Both depressed groups exhibited significantly higher BIS-11 total and subscale scores than HCs, particularly in motor impulsivity (p < 0.05). A significant overall group difference was observed in go trials accuracy among the three groups (p = 0.009). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction showed that the NSSI group had significantly lower go-trial accuracy than the HCs group (p_Bonf < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between the NSSI and non-NSSI groups (p_Bonf > 0.05) or between the non-NSSI and HCs groups (p_Bonf > 0.05). No significant group differences were found in N2 or P3 latency or amplitude across the three groups (all p > 0.05). Correlation analyses revealed that NSSI severity over the past 1, 6, and 12 months was positively correlated with BIS-11 total and motor impulsivity scores (r = 0.198-0.417, all p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with go-task accuracy (r = - 0.248 to - 0.193, all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Depressed adolescents with NSSI exhibited elevated self-reported impulsivity and impaired behavioral inhibitory control, both of which were associated with NSSI severity, whereas no significant neurophysiological differences were observed between depressed adolescents with NSSI and HCs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".