ArticleScientific reports2025
Suicide risk prediction for Korean adolescents based on machine learning.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Joint models targeting U.S. Army soldiers at high-risk of post-separation unemployment, homelessness, and suicide-related behaviors.Npj mental health research · 2026Article
- Trends in Suicidal Ideation and Sadness among Adolescents by Atopic Dermatitis Status, 2007-2024: A Nationwide Representative Study in South Korea.International archives of allergy and immunology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional clinical risk assessment tools proved inadequate for reliably identifying individuals at high risk for suicidal behavior. As a result, machine learning (ML) techniques have become progressively incorporated into psychiatric care. This study evaluates the predictive capability of national survey data, which includes factors such as lifestyle behaviors and mental health indicators, in forecasting adolescent suicidal behavior. The predictive performance of six ML models-Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Extremely Randomized Trees (ET), and Distributed Random Forest (DRF)-was systematically compared. Employed SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values and Permutation Feature Importance (PFI) for interpretability analysis, and ultimately utilized interaction analysis to examine the complex interrelationships among key variables associated with suicide risk. Both the Expert Consultation Method (ECM) and Random Forest-Based Filter Feature Selection (RFFS) datasets revealed that the GBM model achieved the best results, with a predictive accuracy (ACC) of 88%, sensitivity (SENS) of 97%, specificity (SPEC) of 26%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 56%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 83%. Feature importance analysis identified stress and depression as the most significant determinants of suicidal ideation and behavior in middle and high school students, respectively. Multivariate interaction effect analysis further revealed that, at higher levels of depression, lower anxiety levels were significantly correlated with a reduced probability of suicide risk. Additionally, a positive association between stress and anxiety was observed. Overall, the integration of advanced computational techniques with national survey data moderately enhances the accuracy of suicide risk prediction, providing a strong empirical foundation for early intervention in adolescent suicidal behavior.
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.