The role of social support in moderating the impact of cumulative trauma on suicidal thoughts and behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Suicidality in adolescence is a significant public health concern. One potential correlate of suicidality is exposure to childhood trauma. Research shows that cumulative trauma is associated with a higher risk of suicidality during adolescence, with a dose-response pattern between the number of adversities and suicidal outcomes. However, not all adolescents exposed to adversity report suicidal thoughts or behaviors, suggesting that protective factors, such as social support, may buffer this association. This cross-sectional study examined gender differences in the prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, cumulative trauma, and social support among high school students. The study also sought to determine whether cumulative trauma was related to an increased likelihood of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and whether social support moderated the association. Methods: Data were collected from a representative sample of 8,194 adolescents in Grades 9-11 in Quebec, Canada. Results: Girls were more likely than boys to report both suicidal ideation and attempts. The number of traumas experienced was positively associated with the prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts, with each additional trauma linked to an estimated 65%-80% increase in odds, indicating a large dose-response association. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, social support was associated with an attenuation of the relationship between cumulative trauma and suicidal ideation. For suicide attempts, social support showed a direct protective effect among adolescent girls, but this association was not observed among boys. Discussion: These findings highlight the relevance of early identification and support services for youth reporting multiple adversities and lower social support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".