ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026
Predicting suicide attempts in a high-risk clinical cohort of adolescents using machine-learning.
Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating neurobiological markers to prospectively predict adolescent non-suicidal self-injury and suicide attempts: a machine learning approach.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While suicide prevention is a major global health priority in youth, it remains challenging to identify those at risk for future suicidal behavior. This study aimed to investigate the potential of machine learning (ML) based approaches to predict suicide attempts (SA) among high-risk adolescents. We applied three ML-algorithms – elastic net, random forest and extreme gradient boosting – to longitudinal clinical data, and compared their performance to a traditional statistical approach – logistic regression (LR). Models were trained using patient data from a clinical cohort (N = 255) of adolescents with self-harming and risk-taking behaviors. Forty-four predictor variables including sociodemographic information, features of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, psychiatric disorders, global functioning scores and adverse childhood events were obtained at baseline and selected to predict future SAs within a two-year follow-up period. Performance metrics included area under the curve (AUC), Brier score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Moreover, individual predictor importance was explored. ML-algorithms outperformed LR in terms of overall predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.75–0.79 vs. 0.72) and model calibration (Brier scores = 0.18–0.20 vs. 0.24). A prior SA stood out as the most important predictor variable across all algorithms. Our findings demonstrate that SA can be predicted with good overall accuracy, even among patients with high prevalence of suicidal behaviors. The clinical utility of ML-based SA-predictions is subject to several limitations (e.g., ethical, legal, clinical). Alongside improvements of predictive performance, future research needs to address clinical and ethical implications of ML-based risk detection.
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.