Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38501090›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2024

The use of machine learning on administrative and survey data to predict suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review.

Nibene H Somé, Pardis Noormohammadpour, Shannon Lange

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Improving Psychiatry Services with Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges.Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry · 2024
    Review
  10. Linking External Variables to the Prediction of Anxiety and Suicide Attempt Cases.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nibene H SoméInstitute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pardis NoormohammadpourInstitute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shannon LangeInstitute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAPublic Health Ontario · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Machine learning is a promising tool in the area of suicide prevention due to its ability to combine the effects of multiple risk factors and complex interactions. The power of machine learning has led to an influx of studies on suicide prediction, as well as a few recent reviews. Our study distinguished between data sources and reported the most important predictors of suicide outcomes identified in the literature. Objective: Our study aimed to identify studies that applied machine learning techniques to administrative and survey data, summarize performance metrics reported in those studies, and enumerate the important risk factors of suicidal thoughts and behaviors identified. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) to identify all studies that have used machine learning to predict suicidal thoughts and behaviors using administrative and survey data was performed. The search was conducted for articles published between January 1, 2019 and May 11, 2022. In addition, all articles identified in three recently published systematic reviews (the last of which included studies up until January 1, 2019) were retained if they met our inclusion criteria. The predictive power of machine learning methods in predicting suicidal thoughts and behaviors was explored using box plots to summarize the distribution of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values by machine learning method and suicide outcome (i.e., suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt, and death by suicide). Mean AUCs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for each suicide outcome by study design, data source, total sample size, sample size of cases, and machine learning methods employed. The most important risk factors were listed. Results: The search strategy identified 2,200 unique records, of which 104 articles met the inclusion criteria. Machine learning algorithms achieved good prediction of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (i.e., an AUC between 0.80 and 0.89); however, their predictive power appears to differ across suicide outcomes. The boosting algorithms achieved good prediction of suicidal thoughts, death by suicide, and all suicide outcomes combined, while neural network algorithms achieved good prediction of suicide attempts. The risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors differed depending on the data source and the population under study. Conclusion: The predictive utility of machine learning for suicidal thoughts and behaviors largely depends on the approach used. The findings of the current review should prove helpful in preparing future machine learning models using administrative and survey data. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022333454 identifier CRD42022333454.

Indexed as

death by suicidemachine learningpredictive risk factorssuicidal thoughtssuicide attempt

Identifiers

PMID38501090
PMCPMC10944962
OpenAlexW4392372453

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.