Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40934153›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2025

Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matthew J Spittal, Xianglin Aneta Guo, Laurant Kang, Olivia J Kirtley, Angela Clapperton, Keith Hawton, Nav Kapur, Jane Pirkis, Greg Carter

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Indirect, machine learning-based suicide risk screening: Evidence from cross-National Validation.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

9 authors.

Matthew J SpittalCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2841-1536
Xianglin Aneta GuoCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Laurant KangHunter New England Local Health District, Waratah, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0870-5251
Olivia J KirtleyCenter for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-4120
Angela ClappertonCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6129-3404
Keith HawtonCentre for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4985-5715
Nav KapurNational Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH), Centre for Mental Health and Safety, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jane PirkisCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Greg CarterCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8180-1798

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningSelf-Injurious BehaviorSuicideAlgorithmsHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID40934153
PMCPMC12425223

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.