Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38461283›Full record

SynthesisTranslational psychiatry2024

Machine learning and the prediction of suicide in psychiatric populations: a systematic review.

Alessandro Pigoni, Giuseppe Delvecchio, Nunzio Turtulici, Domenico Madonna, Pietro Pietrini, Luca Cecchetti, Paolo Brambilla

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Life events extraction from healthcare notes for veteran acute suicide risk prediction.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Alessandro Pigoni *Social and Affective Neuroscience Group, MoMiLab, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9122-5656
Giuseppe Delvecchio *Department of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Nunzio TurtuliciDepartment of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Domenico MadonnaDepartment of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Pietro PietriniMoMiLab, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6768-5556
Luca CecchettiSocial and Affective Neuroscience Group, MoMiLab, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy.
Paolo BrambillaDepartment of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. paolo.brambilla1@unimi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4021-8456

Funding

Fondazione Cariplo (Cariplo Foundation) 2019-3415Ministero della Salute (Ministry of Health, Italy) GR-2019-12369479Ministero della Salute (Ministry of Health, Italy) Ricerca Corrente 2024Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca (Ministry of Education, University and Research) Dipartimenti di Eccellenza Program 2023-2027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance suicidal prediction. However, as many large-sample studies mixed psychiatric and non-psychiatric populations, a formal psychiatric diagnosis emerged as a strong predictor of suicidal risk, overshadowing more subtle risk factors specific to distinct populations. To overcome this limitation, we conducted a systematic review of ML studies evaluating suicidal behaviors exclusively in psychiatric clinical populations. A systematic literature search was performed from inception through November 17, 2022 on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus following the PRISMA guidelines. Original research using ML techniques to assess the risk of suicide or predict suicide attempts in the psychiatric population were included. An assessment for bias risk was performed using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. About 1032 studies were retrieved, and 81 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis. Clinical and demographic features were the most frequently employed and random forest, support vector machine, and convolutional neural network performed better in terms of accuracy than other algorithms when directly compared. Despite heterogeneity in procedures, most studies reported an accuracy of 70% or greater based on features such as previous attempts, severity of the disorder, and pharmacological treatments. Although the evidence reported is promising, ML algorithms for suicidal prediction still present limitations, including the lack of neurobiological and imaging data and the lack of external validation samples. Overcoming these issues may lead to the development of models to adopt in clinical practice. Further research is warranted to boost a field that holds the potential to critically impact suicide mortality.

Indexed as

Suicidal IdeationSuicide, AttemptedAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID38461283
PMCPMC10925059

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.