ArticleJournal of affective disorders2024
Predicting adolescent suicidal behavior following inpatient discharge using structured and unstructured data.
Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Natural Language Processing Applied to Psychiatric Clinical Notes: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Parental Mental Health and Suicidal Behavior as Predictors of Adolescent Suicidal Ideation and Attempts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Applying large language models to stratify suicide risk using narrative clinical notes.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2025Article
- Clinician Perspectives on Measurement-Based Care to Inform Pre-Implementation Training and Workflow Design on an Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatient Unit.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective was to develop and assess performance of an algorithm predicting suicide-related ICD codes within three months of psychiatric discharge.
methodsThis prognostic study used a retrospective cohort of EHR data from 2789 youth (12 to 20 years old) hospitalized in a safety net institution in the Northeastern United States. The dataset combined structured data with unstructured data obtained through natural language processing of clinical notes. Machine learning approaches compared gradient boosting to random forest analyses.
resultsArea under the ROC and precision-recall curve were 0.88 and 0.17, respectively, for the final Gradient Boosting model. The cutoff point of the model-generated predicted probabilities of suicide that optimally classified the individual as high risk or not was 0.009. When applying the chosen cutoff (0.009) to the hold-out testing set, the model correctly identified 8 positive cases out of 10, and 418 negative cases out 548. The corresponding performance metrics showed 80 % sensitivity, 76 % specificity, 6 % PPV, 99 % NPV, F-1 score of 0.11, and an accuracy of 76 %. LIMITATIONS: The data in this study comes from a single health system, possibly introducing bias in the model's algorithm. Thus, the model may have underestimated the incidence of suicidal behavior in the study population. Further research should include multiple system EHRs.
conclusionsThese performance metrics suggest a benefit to including both unstructured and structured data in design of predictive algorithms for suicidal behavior, which can be integrated into psychiatric services to help assess risk.
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.