Suicidal Behaviours in Affective Disorders: A Defcit of Cognitive Inhibition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Suicide has been related to affective disorders. We hypothesized that suicide could be associated with cognitive inhibition deficit. Our study aimed to systematically review all published articles that examined the relation between cognitive inhibition deficit and suicidal behaviours (that is, suicide attempt or suicidal ideation) in patients with affective disorders. METHOD: We performed an English and French MEDLINE and EMBASE search, ranging from 1970 to 2010, indexed under the MeSH terms of suicide, neuropsychology, neuropsychological tests, and executive function, combined with the following title and abstract terms: neuropsychological functions, executive functioning, and executive performance. RESULTS: Among the 164 selected studies, 9 observational studies met the selection criteria and were included in the final analysis. The number of participants ranged from 57 to 244 (28% to 66%, respectively, were men). Executive dysfunction was more frequently found among patients with suicidal behaviours. In particular, higher cognitive inhibition deficit was observed in depressed subjects with suicide behaviours, compared with depressed subjects without any suicidal behaviour. The results of the meta-analysis showed a higher impairment in inhibition score, according to the number of perseverations in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Cohen d = 0.68) than in inhibition according to the time needed to perform the Trail-Making Test part B (d = 0.01) among patients with suicidal behaviour, compared with patients with no suicidal behaviour. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed a positive association between cognitive inhibition deficit and suicide attempts in patients with affective disorders. Future research should examine whether cognitive inhibition deficit precedes the suicidal behaviour.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".