ArticleTranslational psychiatry2026
A proof-of-concept machine learning model for short-term suicide risk stratification in depressed youth.
Article in Translational 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.
- A bibliometric analysis of global research trends and emerging hotspots on suicide and depression among children and adolescents.Discover mental health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) offers promise for suicide risk stratification in depressed youth, yet its clinical application remains methodologically challenging. Using prospective data from 602 Chinese patients aged 15-24 years collected between January 2022 and June 2023, we developed ML models to predict suicide attempts within 30 days after treatment. From 102 clinical and psychosocial predictors, only 30 suicide attempts (5.0%) were observed, resulting in a limited predictor-to-event ratio. Seven algorithms were trained on 70% of the sample (n = 421; 21 events) using 10‑fold cross‑validation and tested on the remaining 30% (n = 181; 9 events), with model selection emphasizing regularization and parsimony to reduce overfitting risk. Among the algorithms, the Support Vector Machine (AUC = 0.831) and Elastic Net (AUC = 0.811) achieved the best test performance, while more complex models such as random forests and deep learning exhibited poor generalization. A combined SVM + EN ensemble reached an AUC of 0.84 in cross‑validation and identified a high‑risk decile with a 20% suicide attempt rate compared to 3.6% among remaining patients (RR = 5.53), although confidence intervals were wide due to the small number of events. These findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of ML‑based short‑term risk stratification but also underscore important methodological constraints. When retrained using only 15 LASSO-selected predictors, the model's discrimination remained comparable (AUC = 0.82), supporting robustness against over-fitting. Low event counts limited model stability, cohort homogeneity and single‑country recruitment restricted generalizability, and the lack of temporal validation precluded assessment of model drift. Consequently, the models presented here should be viewed as proof‑of‑concept rather than evidence of clinical readiness, providing an empirical basis for future validation in larger and more diverse longitudinal cohorts.
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.