ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of a machine learning model for indirect screening of suicidal ideation in the general population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Indirect, machine learning-based suicide risk screening: Evidence from cross-National Validation.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Article
- Prediction of suicidal ideation and depression in the general population with subthreshold insomnia using machine learning models.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Developing a suicide risk prediction model for hospitalized adolescents with depression in China.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Suicide is among the leading causes of death worldwide and a concerning public health problem, accounting for over 700,000 registered deaths worldwide. However, suicide deaths are preventable with timely and evidence-based interventions, which are often low-cost. Suicidal tendencies range from passive thoughts to ideation and actions, with ideation strongly predicting suicide. However, current screening methods yield limited accuracy, impeding effective prevention. The primary goal of this study was to validate a machine-learning-based model for screening suicidality using indirect questions, developed on data collected during the early COVID-19 pandemic and to differentiate suicide risk among subgroups like age and gender. The detection of suicidal ideation (SI) was based on habits, demographic features, strategies for coping with stress, and satisfaction with three important aspects of life. The model performed on par with the earlier study, surprisingly generalizing well even with different characteristics of the underlying population, not showing any significant effect of the machine learning drift. The sample of 1199 respondents reported an 18.6% prevalence of SI in the past month. The presented model for indirect suicidality screening has proven its validity in different circumstances and timeframes, emphasizing its potential as a tool for suicide prevention and intervention in the general population.
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.