Cited by 25Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSchizophrenia research and treatment

A qualitative systematic review of suicide behavior using the cognitive systems domain of the research domain criteria (RDoC) framework

Huber, Rebekah S., Hodgson, Riley, Yurgelun-Todd, Deborah A.·2019·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Neurocognitive deficits are associated with both suicide behavior (SB) and psychiatric disorders. Application of a transdiagnostic framework to identify neurocognitive commonalities of SB may clarify important risk factors of SB across psychiatric disorders. The aim of this study was to conduct a qualitative systematic literature review of SB using the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Cognitive Systems framework to determine if cognitive deficits exist independently of psychiatric disorders in SB. The following six constructs that encompass the Cognitive Systems domain were assessed: 1) Attention, 2) Cognitive Control, 3) Declarative Memory, 4) Language, 5) Perception, and 6) Working Memory. A total of 1386 abstracts were identified and 74 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The majority of studies reviewed (65%) had significant differences in cognition between individuals with and without SB. Seventy-nine percent of studies with a patient control group showed significant cognitive deficits in SB groups. Deficits in cognitive control were associated with SB and had the greatest percentage of studies with significant main findings. Use of the RDoC cognitive systems framework to evaluate SB revealed that cognitive deficits may be a transdiagnostic risk factor for SB, especially alterations in cognitive control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112589

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Suicide attempters exhibit less language fluency and learning.

    “- Suicide attempters exhibit less language fluency and learning (38) and impaired deterministic learning in the context of complex unambiguous environments (39).”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huber, R. S., Hodgson, R., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Huber, Rebekah S.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
282
Pages
112589
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2987550696
Cited by
25
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Utah Science Technology and Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
suicidal behavior, cognitive impairment, cognitive control, Research Domain Criteria, transdiagnostic risk factors, attention, declarative memory, language, perception, working memory, neurocognitive impairment
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Attention, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Language, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Perception, Risk Factors, Suicidal Ideation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review