ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Evaluating the clinical utility of an easily applicable prediction model of suicide attempts, newly developed and validated with a general community sample of adults.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA suicide attempt (SA) is a clinically serious action. Researchers have argued that reducing long-term SA risk may be possible, provided that at-risk individuals are identified and receive adequate treatment. Algorithms may accurately identify at-risk individuals. However, the clinical utility of algorithmically estimated long-term SA risk has never been the predominant focus of any study.
methodsThe data of this report stem from CoLaus|PsyCoLaus, a prospective longitudinal study of general community adults from Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants (N = 4,097; M
resultsSA at any of the three follow-up study assessments was reported by 1.2%. For a range of seven a priori selected threshold probabilities, ranging between 0.5% and 2%, logistic regression showed highest overall NB in 97.4% of all 700 internal cross-validations (100 for each selected threshold probability).
conclusionDespite the strong class imbalance of the outcome (98.8% no, 1.2% yes) and only four predictors, clinical utility was observed. That is, using the logistic regression model for clinical decision making provided the most true positives, without an increase of false positives, compared to all competing decision strategies. Clinical utility is one among several important prerequisites of implementing an algorithm in routine practice, and may possibly guide a clinicians' treatment decision making to reduce long-term individual SA risk. The novel metric NB may become a standard performance measure, because the a priori invested clinical considerations enable clinicians to interpret the results directly.
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.