Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39607132›Full record

ArticleCadernos de saude publica2024

Comparative analysis of BERT-based and generative large language models for detecting suicidal ideation: a performance evaluation study.

Adonias Caetano de Oliveira, Renato Freitas Bessa, Ariel Soares Teles

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Adonias Caetano de OliveiraInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-5643-2916
Renato Freitas BessaUniversidade Federal do Delta do Parnaíba, Parnaíba, Brasil.ORCID 0009-0005-8989-768X
Ariel Soares TelesUniversidade Federal do Delta do Parnaíba, Parnaíba, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-3870

Funding

Research Support, Non-US Gov’t
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence can detect suicidal ideation manifestations in texts. Studies demonstrate that BERT-based models achieve better performance in text classification problems. Large language models (LLMs) answer free-text queries without being specifically trained. This work aims to compare the performance of three variations of BERT models and LLMs (Google Bard, Microsoft Bing/GPT-4, and OpenAI ChatGPT-3.5) for identifying suicidal ideation from nonclinical texts written in Brazilian Portuguese. A dataset labeled by psychologists consisted of 2,691 sentences without suicidal ideation and 1,097 with suicidal ideation, of which 100 sentences were selected for testing. We applied data preprocessing techniques, hyperparameter optimization, and hold-out cross-validation for training and testing BERT models. When evaluating LLMs, we used zero-shot prompting engineering. Each test sentence was labeled if it contained suicidal ideation, according to the chatbot's response. Bing/GPT-4 achieved the best performance, with 98% across all metrics. Fine-tuned BERT models outperformed the other LLMs: BERTimbau-Large performed the best with a 96% accuracy, followed by BERTimbau-Base with 94%, and BERT-Multilingual with 87%. Bard performed the worst with 62% accuracy, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 achieved 81%. The high recall capacity of the models suggests a low misclassification rate of at-risk patients, which is crucial to prevent missed interventions by professionals. However, despite their potential in supporting suicidal ideation detection, these models have not been validated in a patient monitoring clinical setting. Therefore, caution is advised when using the evaluated models as tools to assist healthcare professionals in detecting suicidal ideation.

Indexed as

Suicidal IdeationArtificial IntelligenceBrazilHumansNatural Language Processing

Identifiers

PMID39607132
PMCPMC11654116

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.