ArticlePloS one2025
Automated detection and prediction of suicidal behavior from clinical notes using deep learning.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Benchmarking large language models against practicing clinicians on psychopathological assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Detecting Pediatric Emergency Service Use for Suicide and Self-Harm: Multimodal Analysis of 3828 Encounters.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- An explainable multimodal artificial intelligence model for classifying suicide attempters with borderline personality disorder: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning approaches have tremendous potential to improve the predictive power of traditional suicide prediction models to detect and predict intentional self-harm (ISH). Existing research is limited by a general lack of consistent performance and replicability across sites. We aimed to validate a deep learning approach used in previous research to detect and predict ISH using clinical note text and evaluate its generalizability to other academic medical centers.
methodsWe extracted clinical notes from electronic health records (EHRs) of 1,538 patients with International Classification of Diseases codes for ISH and 3,012 matched controls without ISH codes. We evaluated the performance of two traditional bag-of-words models (i.e., Naïve Bayes, Random Forest) and two convolutional neural network (CNN) models including randomly initialized (CNNr) and pre-trained Word2Vec initialized (CNNw) weights to detect ISH within 24 hours of and predict ISH from clinical notes 1-6 months before the first ISH event.
resultsIn detecting concurrent ISH, both CNN models outperformed bag-of-words models with AUCs of.99 and F1 scores of 0.94. In predicting future ISH, the CNN models outperformed Naïve Bayes models with AUCs of 0.81-0.82 and F1 scores of 0.61-.64.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that leveraging EHRs with a well-defined set of ISH ICD codes to train deep learning models to detect and predict ISH using clinical note text is feasible and replicable at more than one institution. Future work will examine this approach across multiple sites under less controlled settings using both structured and unstructured EHR data.
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.