ArticleNpj mental health research2026
Fairness analysis of machine learning predictions of aggression in acute psychiatric care.
Article in Npj mental health research, 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.
- Impacts of cognitive forcing and need for cognition on biased AI-assisted decision making about mental health emergencies.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being developed to support individualized risk assessment and de-escalation in acute psychiatry. However, ML algorithms have been shown to exhibit unfair behavior based on protected characteristics, such as an individual's sex or ethnicity. The fairness of ML-based predictions of aggression in acute psychiatry has received limited investigation. To address this gap, we trained an ML algorithm to predict aggressive incidents from structured electronic health records corresponding to 17,703 patients at a large psychiatric hospital between January 2016 and May 2022 (n = 42,719 observation days). We analyzed predictions for fairness by assessing disparities in false positive rates (FPR) and true positive rates (TPR), based on patient race/ethnicity, gender, admission mode, citizenship, and housing status, as well as intersections of race/ethnicity and gender. A random forest algorithm attained ROC-AUC = 0.81. Fairness analyses revealed significant disparities in FPR and TPR across subgroups: FPR was higher for Middle Eastern and Black patients, men, those admitted into emergency care by the police, and those with unstable or supportive forms of housing. Our analysis demonstrates the potential for ML algorithms to reinforce and amplify known social and structural inequities, highlighting the importance of considering and addressing model fairness prior to clinical implementation.
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.