ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2021
Clinical risk prediction models and informative cluster size: Assessing the performance of a suicide risk prediction algorithm.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction models for self-harm and suicide: a systematic review and critical appraisal.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning and the prediction of suicide in psychiatric populations: a systematic review.Translational psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Validation of self‑harm prediction models among formerly incarcerated individuals using health data.Health & justice · 2026Article
- Predicting and differentiating opioid and non-opioid drug poisonings using health records data.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- Predicting and differentiating accidental and self-harm drug poisonings using health records data.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based early warning model for carbapenem-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Automatically extracting social determinants of health for suicide: a narrative literature review.Npj mental health research · 2024Review
- Predicting risk of suicidal behavior from insurance claims data vs. linked data from insurance claims and electronic health records.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
- Complex modeling with detailed temporal predictors does not improve health records-based suicide risk prediction.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical visit data are clustered within people, which complicates prediction modeling. Cluster size is often informative because people receiving more care are less healthy and at higher risk of poor outcomes. We used data from seven health systems on 1,518,968 outpatient mental health visits from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015 to predict suicide attempt within 90 days. We evaluated true performance of prediction models using a prospective validation set of 4,286,495 visits from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017. We examined dividing clustered data on the person or visit level for model training and cross-validation and considered a within cluster resampling approach for model estimation. We evaluated optimism by comparing estimated performance from a left-out testing dataset to performance in the prospective dataset. We used two prediction methods, logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and random forest. The random forest model using a visit-level split for model training and testing was optimistic; it overestimated discrimination (area under the curve, AUC = 0.95 in testing versus 0.84 in prospective validation) and classification accuracy (sensitivity = 0.48 in testing versus 0.19 in prospective validation, 95th percentile cut-off). Logistic regression and random forest models using a person-level split performed well, accurately estimating prospective discrimination and classification: estimated AUCs ranged from 0.85 to 0.87 in testing versus 0.85 in prospective validation, and sensitivity ranged from 0.15 to 0.20 in testing versus 0.17 to 0.19 in prospective validation. Within cluster resampling did not improve performance. We recommend dividing clustered data on the person level, rather than visit level, to ensure strong performance in prospective use and accurate estimation of future performance at the time of model development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.