Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32944503›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2020

Applying machine learning on health record data from general practitioners to predict suicidality.

Kasper van Mens, Elke Elzinga, Mark Nielen, Joran Lokkerbol, Rune Poortvliet, Gé Donker, Marianne Heins, Joke Korevaar, Michel Dückers, Claire Aussems and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Leveraging data science to enhance suicide prevention research: a literature review.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Kasper van MensAltrecht Mental Healthcare, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Elke Elzinga113 Suicide Prevention, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mark NielenNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Joran LokkerbolTrimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rune PoortvlietNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Gé DonkerNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marianne HeinsNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Joke KorevaarNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michel DückersNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Claire AussemsNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marco HelbichHuman Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bea TiemensBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Renske Gilissen113 Suicide Prevention, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Aartjan BeekmanPsychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health (research institute), Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Derek de BeursTrimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health), Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuicidal behaviour is difficult to detect in the general practice. Machine learning (ML) algorithms using routinely collected data might support General Practitioners (GPs) in the detection of suicidal behaviour. In this paper, we applied machine learning techniques to support GPs recognizing suicidal behaviour in primary care patients using routinely collected general practice data.

methodsThis case-control study used data from a national representative primary care database including over 1.5 million patients (Nivel Primary Care Database). Patients with a suicide (attempt) in 2017 were selected as cases (N = 574) and an at risk control group (N = 207,308) was selected from patients with psychological vulnerability but without a suicide attempt in 2017. RandomForest was trained on a small subsample of the data (training set), and evaluated on unseen data (test set).

resultsAlmost two-third (65%) of the cases visited their GP within the last 30 days before the suicide (attempt). RandomForest showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.05 (0.04-0.06), with a sensitivity of 0.39 (0.32-0.47) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (0.81-0.88). Almost all controls were accurately labeled as controls (specificity = 0.98 (0.97-0.98)). Among a sample of 650 at-risk primary care patients, the algorithm would label 20 patients as high-risk. Of those, one would be an actual case and additionally, one case would be missed.

conclusionIn this study, we applied machine learning to predict suicidal behaviour using general practice data. Our results showed that these techniques can be used as a complementary step in the identification and stratification of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour. The results are encouraging and provide a first step to use automated screening directly in clinical practice. Additional data from different social domains, such as employment and education, might improve accuracy.

Indexed as

Electronic health recordsGeneral practiceMachine learningSuicide

Identifiers

PMID32944503
PMCPMC7481555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.