ArticleInternational journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
Machine learning prediction of suicide attempt counts in Poland: Insights from Google trends and historical data.
Article in International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Suicidality is a complex, multifaceted issue with significant biopsychosocial causes, ranking as a major cause of death in developed nations. This study aims to leverage machine learning (ML) to predict monthly suicide counts in Poland using Google Trends data, contributing to ongoing efforts to improve public health strategies. Methods: Using data from the Polish National Police (2013-2023), monthly suicide attempt counts were analysed alongside relative search volumes (RSVs) of 40 suicide-related and mental health terms. Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) identified the strongest predictors. Four ML models: Linear Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Regression (SVR), and XGBoost Regression were tested, with PCC and error metrics guiding model selection. Results: Results showed that 16 terms were the best predictors for the general population and 13 for the adult cohort. Random Forest Regression outperformed the other models, achieving a PCC of 0.909 and a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 6.78% for the general population, compared to SVR's PCC of 0.644 and 14.8% MAPE. For the adult cohort, Random Forest yielded a PCC of 0.853 and MAPE of 7.21%, again outperforming SVR. Key predictors included Conclusions: This study presents one of the first ML approaches to predicting suicide attempts at national level, highlighting the utility of Google Trends data. Further research with higher-resolution data is recommended to refine predictive models and enhance suicide prevention strategies.
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.