Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34731169›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Predicting suicidal thoughts and behavior among adolescents using the risk and protective factor framework: A large-scale machine learning approach.

Orion Weller, Luke Sagers, Carl Hanson, Michael Barnes, Quinn Snell, E Shannon Tass

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Suicides in India: A Forecasting for Immediate Investment to Save Lives.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Orion WellerDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4148-5430
Luke SagersDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5024-7314
Carl HansonDepartment of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Michael BarnesDepartment of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Quinn SnellDepartment of Computer Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
E Shannon TassDepartment of Statistics, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Brigham Young University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAddressing the problem of suicidal thoughts and behavior (STB) in adolescents requires understanding the associated risk factors. While previous research has identified individual risk and protective factors associated with many adolescent social morbidities, modern machine learning approaches can help identify risk and protective factors that interact (group) to provide predictive power for STB. This study aims to develop a prediction algorithm for STB among adolescents using the risk and protective factor framework and social determinants of health.

methodsThe sample population consisted of more than 179,000 high school students living in Utah and participating in the Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey from 2011-2017. The dataset includes responses to 300+ questions from the CTC and 8000+ demographic factors from the American Census Survey for a total of 1.2 billion values. Machine learning techniques were employed to extract the survey questions that were best able to predict answers indicative of STB, using recent work in interpretable machine learning.

resultsAnalysis showed strong predictive power, with the ability to predict individuals with STB with 91% accuracy. After extracting the top ten questions that most affected model predictions, questions fell into four main categories: familial life, drug consumption, demographics, and peer acceptance at school.

conclusionsModern machine learning approaches provide new methods for understanding the interaction between root causes and outcomes, such as STB. The model developed in this study showed significant improvement in predictive accuracy compared to previous research. Results indicate that certain risk and protective factors, such as adolescents being threatened or harassed through digital media or bullied at school, and exposure or involvement in serious arguments and yelling at home are the leading predictors of STB and can help narrow and reaffirm priority prevention programming and areas of focused policymaking.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSuicidal IdeationAdolescentBullyingCannabisFemaleForecastingHumansInternetMaleRisk FactorsSchoolsStudentsSuicideSuicide, AttemptedSuicide Prevention

Identifiers

PMID34731169
PMCPMC8565727
OpenAlexW3209385093

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.