Exploring Pain Processing as a Potential Marker for Suicide Risk: A Pilot fMRI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain tolerance, a core feature of capability for suicide, may explain why ideation does not universally precede attempt. Notably, no reliable predictors distinguish suicide ideators from attempt. No studies have investigated physical pain-invoked neural activity within suicide-risk. In this pilot cross-sectional study, we aimed to identify whether fMRI pain-invoked neural activity differed among suicide ideators with (n=12) and without (n=9) lifetime suicide attempt, and healthy controls (n=18). Participants completed an fMRI pressure pain task, involving 3 stimuli blocks via pressure cuff adjusted to individual perception, and rated intensity and unpleasantness. Region-of-interest and whole-brain analyses were conducted using FMRIB Software Library (FSL), and RStudio. Analyses revealed moderate-to-large effect sizes in anterior insula (?2=0.114), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (?2=0.112) and anterior midcingulate cortex (?2=0.099). Attempters also had increased activity in the fusiform gyrus and visual cortex compared to ideators (p<0.001, p<0.001). Differences in pressure pain-invoked neural activation may therefore help stratify suicide-risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".