SynthesisPLoS medicine2025
Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can machine learning predict non-suicidal self-injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for pediatric health: Current trends and future opportunities.iScience · 2026Review
- Combining Machine Learning Models and Screening to Enhance Suicide Risk Identification for American Indian Patients: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning approaches for suicide‑related outcomes: a meta‑analysis.Annals of general 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
- Will AI Replace Physicians in the Near Future? AI Adoption Barriers in Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The non-suicidal self-injury behaviour and its influencing factors in adolescents.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in the psychologist's toolkit: Psypilot as a case study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence as decision support for adolescent depression and anxiety: a mini review of clinical utility, safety, and implementation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Position paper on symbiotic intelligence in healthcare: Can AI help us better understand suicidal behavior and prevent suicide?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A hierarchical machine learning model for predicting self-harm and suicidal behaviour in hospitalised patients with schizophrenia using clinical history and nursing observations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- The spread of mind: psychological contagion in theory and critique.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been rapid expansion in the development of machine learning algorithms to predict suicidal behaviours. To test the accuracy of these algorithms for predicting suicide and hospital-treated self-harm, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42024523074). METHODS AND
findingsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, IEEE, Medline, CINALH and Web of Science from database inception until 30 April 2025 to identify studies using machine learning algorithms to predict suicide, self-harm and a combined suicide/self-harm outcome. Studies were included if they examined suicide or hospital-treated self-harm outcomes using a case-control, case-cohort or cohort study design. Studies were excluded if they used self-reported outcomes or examined outcomes using other study designs. Accuracy was assessed using statistical methods appropriate for diagnostic accuracy studies. Fifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranged from 0.69 to 0.93. Sensitivity was 45%-82% and specificity was 91%-95%. Positive likelihood ratios were 6.5-9.9 and negative likelihood values were 0.2-0.6. Using in-sample prevalence values, the positive predictive values ranged from 6% to 17%. Using out-of-sample prevalence values at an LR+ value of 10, the positive predictive value was 0.1% in low prevalence populations, 17% in medium prevalence populations and 66% in high prevalence populations. The main study limitations were the exclusion of relevant studies where we could not extract sufficient information to calculate accuracy statistics and between-study differences in the follow-up time over which the outcomes were observed.
conclusionsThe accuracy of machine learning algorithms for predicting suicidal behaviour is too low to be useful for screening (case finding) or for prioritising high-risk individuals for interventions (treatment allocation). For hospital-treated self-harm populations, management should instead include three components for all patients: a needs-based assessment and response, identification of modifiable risk factors with treatment intended to reduce those exposures, and implementation of demonstrated effective aftercare interventions.
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.