↓ Skip to main content

Can We Use Neurocognition to Predict Repetition of Self-Harm, and Why Might This Be Clinically Useful? A Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can We Use Neurocognition to Predict Repetition of Self-Harm, and Why Might This Be Clinically Useful? A Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angharad N. de Cates, Matthew R. Broome

Abstract

Over 800,000 people die by suicide each year globally, with non-fatal self-harm 20 times more common. With each episode of self-harm, the risks of future self-harm and suicide increase, as well as personal and healthcare costs. Therefore, early delineation of those at high risk of future self-harm is important. Historically, research has focused on clinical and demographic factors, but risk assessments based on these have low sensitivity to predict repetition. Various neurocognitive factors have been associated with self-harming behavior, but it is less certain if we can use these factors clinically (i) as risk markers to predict future self-harm and (ii) to become therapeutic targets for interventions. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of behavioral tasks and fMRI studies point to an emerging hypothesis for neurocognition in self-harm: an underactive pre-frontal cortex is unable to respond appropriately to non-emotional stimuli, or inhibit a hyperactive emotionally-/threat-driven limbic system. However, there is almost no imaging data examining repetition of self-harm. Extrapolating from the non-repetition data, there may be several potential neurocognitive targets for interventions to prevent repeat self-harm: cognitive training; pharmacological regimes to promote non-emotional neurocognition; or other techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Hence, there is an urgent need for imaging studies examining repetition and to test specific hypotheses. Until we investigate the functional neurocognitive basis underlying repetition of self-harm in a systematic manner using second-generational imaging techniques, we will be unable to inform third-generational imaging and potential future clinical applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 6 7%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Neuroscience 10 12%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,646,453
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,161
of 12,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,145
of 408,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#14
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.