ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Methods in Personalized Aggression Risk Prediction within Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment Settings-A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Validity of Violence Screening Tools in Emergency and Psychiatric Services: A Systematic Review.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning for prediction of violent behaviors in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- The Development of Violence Research in Psychiatric Nursing: A Bibliometric Perspective.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Hierarchical machine learning model integrating clinical history and nursing observations for predicting violent behavior in hospitalized schizophrenia patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Testamentary capacity assessment in dementia using artificial intelligence: prospects and challenges.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aggression risk assessments are vital to prevent injuries and morbidities amongst patients and staff in psychiatric settings. More recent studies have harnessed artificial intelligence (AI) methods such as machine learning algorithms to determine factors associated with aggression in psychiatric treatment settings. In this review, using Cooper's five-stage review framework, we aimed to evaluate the: (1) predictive accuracy, and (2) clinical variables associated with AI-based aggression risk prediction amongst psychiatric inpatients. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL were searched for relevant articles until April 2022. The eight included studies were independently evaluated using critical appraisal tools for systematic review developed by Joanna Briggs Institute. Most of the studies (87.5%) examined health records in predicting aggression and reported acceptable to excellent accuracy with specific machine learning algorithms employed (area under curve range 0.75-0.87). No particular machine learning algorithm outperformed the others consistently across studies (area under curve range 0.61-0.87). Relevant factors identified with aggression related to demographic and social profile, past aggression, forensic history, other psychiatric history, psychopathology, challenging behaviors and management domains. The limited extant studies have highlighted a potential role for the use of AI methods to clarify factors associated with aggression in psychiatric inpatient treatment settings.
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.