The Differences between Suicide Ideators and Suicide Attempters: Simple, Complicated, or Complex?

集合(抽象数据类型) 判别式 计算机科学 简单(哲学) 考试(生物学) 逻辑回归 自杀未遂 单变量 心理学 自杀预防 算法 毒物控制 机器学习 医学 多元统计 医疗急救 哲学 生物 程序设计语言 古生物学 认识论
作者
Xieyining Huang,Jessica D. Ribeiro,Joseph C. Franklin
标识
DOI:10.31234/osf.io/8tuqg
摘要

Background: Given that many people think about suicide and relatively few attempt suicide, researchers have proposed that accurate differentiation between ideators and attempters can aid suicide prevention efforts. Ideators and attempters might differ in three possible ways. First, they might differ in a simple way such that one or a small set of factors are both necessary and sufficient to distinguish between the two groups. Second, ideators and attempters might differ in a complicated way such that a specific combination of a large set of factors is necessary and sufficient for the distinction. Third, complex differences might exist: many possible combinations of a large set of factors are sufficient to distinguish the two groups, but no combination is necessary. This study empirically examined the difference between suicide ideators and attempters. To support a simple difference, individual factors need to produce high classification accuracy. To support complicated differences, one optimized algorithm including a large number of factors needs to produce high accuracy, but removal of factors from the algorithm should substantially reduce the accuracy. To support complex differences, multiple algorithms including a large number of factors need to produce similarly high accuracy, and meanwhile not all algorithms should lead to high accuracy.Methods: Across five samples (total N = 3,869), univariate logistic regressions were conducted to test for simple differences. To test for complicated and complex differences, Machine learning (ML) methods were used to identify the optimized algorithm with all available variables. Subsequently, the same methods were repeated after removing the top five most important or discriminative variables, and a randomly selected 10% subset of variables. Multiple logistic regressions were conducted with all variables.Results: Results were highly consistent across samples. Univariate logistic regressions on average yielded chance-level accuracy. ML algorithms with all variables or with a subset of variables removed showed good accuracy, whereas multiple logistic regressions produced poor to fair accuracy.Conclusions: The study found that differences between suicide ideators and attempters are complex rather than simple or complicated. The findings are consistent with broader psychological evidence and bear important implications for research and clinical practice.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
breeze发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
大模型的应助被Feng采纳,获得10
刚刚
刚刚
Rrr发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
1秒前
cLong发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
2秒前
2秒前
lss完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
4秒前
香蕉亦竹发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
韩梅发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
高高发布了新的文献求助50
5秒前
6秒前
6秒前
6秒前
Jasper的应助被M二以采纳,获得10
6秒前
123发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
玩家666发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
Orange的应助被周七七采纳,获得10
8秒前
学术bug发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
shanjiu完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
JHIANG发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
希望天下0贩的0的应助被pay采纳,获得10
9秒前
9秒前
情怀的应助被眼睛大唯雪采纳,获得10
10秒前
QQ完成签到,获得积分20
10秒前
研友_VZG7GZ的应助被调皮冷霜采纳,获得10
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
pitte09完成签到,获得积分20
12秒前
12秒前
一念之间完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
Feng发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
13秒前
13秒前
tang发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
From Scaling and Perturbation to Stability 5000
Les Mantodea De Guyane 2000
Energie-Contracting 1500
Stochastic Models in Operations Research,Vol. 2 600
Problems and Solutions for Integer and Combinatorial Optimization: Building Skills in Discrete Optimization 600
Organizational Behavior 510
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 计算机科学 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 物理 复合材料 内科学 催化作用 光电子学 人工智能 细胞生物学 无机化学 物理化学 数学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 8030345
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9469651
关于积分的说明 21239296
捐赠科研通 7600184
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3388478
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2520788
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2425271