Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33382713›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Predicting self-harm within six months after initial presentation to youth mental health services: A machine learning study.

Frank Iorfino, Nicholas Ho, Joanne S Carpenter, Shane P Cross, Tracey A Davenport, Daniel F Hermens, Hannah Yee, Alissa Nichles, Natalia Zmicerevska, Adam Guastella and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A prognostic model for predicting functional impairment in youth mental health services.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2024
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Frank IorfinoBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1109-0972
Nicholas HoBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9843-0866
Joanne S CarpenterBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Shane P CrossBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5413-8342
Tracey A DavenportBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Daniel F HermensBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hannah YeeBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alissa NichlesBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Natalia ZmicerevskaBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Adam GuastellaBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth ScottBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ian B HickieBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA priority for health services is to reduce self-harm in young people. Predicting self-harm is challenging due to their rarity and complexity, however this does not preclude the utility of prediction models to improve decision-making regarding a service response in terms of more detailed assessments and/or intervention. The aim of this study was to predict self-harm within six-months after initial presentation.

methodThe study included 1962 young people (12-30 years) presenting to youth mental health services in Australia. Six machine learning algorithms were trained and tested with ten repeats of ten-fold cross-validation. The net benefit of these models were evaluated using decision curve analysis.

resultsOut of 1962 young people, 320 (16%) engaged in self-harm in the six months after first assessment and 1642 (84%) did not. The top 25% of young people as ranked by mean predicted probability accounted for 51.6% - 56.2% of all who engaged in self-harm. By the top 50%, this increased to 82.1%-84.4%. Models demonstrated fair overall prediction (AUROCs; 0.744-0.755) and calibration which indicates that predicted probabilities were close to the true probabilities (brier scores; 0.185-0.196). The net benefit of these models were positive and superior to the 'treat everyone' strategy. The strongest predictors were (in ranked order); a history of self-harm, age, social and occupational functioning, sex, bipolar disorder, psychosis-like experiences, treatment with antipsychotics, and a history of suicide ideation.

conclusionPrediction models for self-harm may have utility to identify a large sub population who would benefit from further assessment and targeted (low intensity) interventions. Such models could enhance health service approaches to identify and reduce self-harm, a considerable source of distress, morbidity, ongoing health care utilisation and mortality.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMental Health ServicesAdolescentAdultAntipsychotic AgentsArea Under CurveBipolar DisorderChildFemaleHumansMalePsychotic DisordersROC CurveSelf-Injurious BehaviorSuicidal IdeationYoung AdultAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID33382713
PMCPMC7775066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.