ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2019
Distress, Suicidality, and Affective Disorders at the Time of Social Networks.
Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How does childhood emotional abuse aggravate problematic mobile phone use among Chinese adolescents: roles of rumination and depression symptoms.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Turning Lemons into Lemonade: Social Support as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Technostress and Quality of Life Among University Students.Psychology research and behavior management · 2024Article
- Acceptability and satisfaction withFrontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe reviewed how scholars recently addressed the complex relationship that binds distress, affective disorders, and suicidal behaviors on the one hand and social networking on the other. We considered the latest machine learning performances in detecting affective-related outcomes from social media data, and reviewed understandings of how, why, and with what consequences distressed individuals use social network sites. Finally, we examined how these insights may concretely instantiate on the individual level with a qualitative case series. RECENT
findingsMachine learning classifiers are progressively stabilizing with moderate to high performances in detecting affective-related diagnosis, symptoms, and risks from social media linguistic markers. Qualitatively, such markers appear to translate ambivalent and socially constrained motivations such as self-disclosure, passive support seeking, and connectedness reinforcement. Binding data science and psychosocial research appears as the unique condition to ground a translational web-clinic for treating and preventing affective-related issues on social media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31522268What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.