MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106834021 · doi:10.14288/cjur.v7i2.195961

Potential Neural Pathway for Explaining Suicidal Behaviour: Does it Exist?

2021· article· en· W7106834021 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidologyNeuroimagingImpulsivityPoison controlFunctional neuroimagingMental healthNeural correlates of consciousnessHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a major health problem, with a lack of decline in suicide rates over the past few decades suggesting existing treatment methods are not effective enough in dealing with suicidal behaviour. A review of the existing neuroimaging literature on suicidal behaviour suggests that a core, “skeleton” neural pathway exists in that a majority of suicidal individuals tend to have structural and functional alterations in the ACC, PFC (more specifically the OFC) and insular cortex. This proposed pathway is able to explain the two main cognitive-behavioural characteristics observed in suicidal individuals: increased impulsivity and impaired decision-making, and emotional dysregulation. Abnormalities in other brain regions may exist in suicidal individuals depending on certain characteristics; most notably, the presence of a comorbid mental disorder may be correlated with impairments of specific brain structures depending on the disorder that is present. Future neuroscientific and psychological research should aim to increase the replicability of neuroimaging studies, determine the extent of the impact a comorbid mental disorder has on the observed location of neural abnormalities in the brain, and to unify the definitions of terminology used in the study of suicide to increase validity and compatibility across suicidology research.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→