Trial reportBehaviour research and therapy2024
Initial evaluation of a personalized advantage index to determine which individuals may benefit from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for suicide prevention.
Trial report in Behaviour research and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Treatment Selection for Digital Eating Disorder Interventions: A Proof-of-Concept for the Personalized Advantage Index.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Trial
- Mapping neural effects of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in ADHD using EEG microstates and machine learning models.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
objectiveDevelop and evaluate a treatment matching algorithm to predict differential treatment response to Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for suicide prevention (MBCT-S) versus enhanced treatment-as-usual (eTAU).
methodsAnalyses used data from Veterans at high-risk for suicide assigned to either MBCT-S (n = 71) or eTAU (n = 69) in a randomized clinical trial. Potential predictors (n = 55) included available demographic, clinical, and neurocognitive variables. Random forest models were used to predict risk of suicidal event (suicidal behaviors, or ideation resulting in hospitalization or emergency department visit) within 12 months following randomization, characterize the prediction, and develop a Personalized Advantage Index (PAI).
resultsA slightly better prediction model emerged for MBCT-S (AUC = 0.70) than eTAU (AUC = 0.63). Important outcome predictors for participants in the MBCT-S arm included PTSD diagnosis, decisional efficiency on a neurocognitive task (Go/No-Go), prior-year mental health residential treatment, and non-suicidal self-injury. Significant predictors for participants in the eTAU arm included past-year acute psychiatric hospitalizations, past-year outpatient psychotherapy visits, past-year suicidal ideation severity, and attentional control (indexed by Stroop task). A moderation analysis showed that fewer suicidal events occurred among those randomized to their PAI-indicated optimal treatment.
conclusionsPAI-guided treatment assignment may enhance suicide prevention outcomes. However, prior to real-world application, additional research is required to improve model accuracy and evaluate model generalization.
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.