ArticleNpj mental health research2026
Evaluating model generalizability for suicide attempt risk prediction: traditional machine vs deep learning.
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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Suicide remains a leading cause of death and a significant public health concern in the United States. A majority (83%) of suicide decedents had a healthcare visit within the prior 365 days, presenting unique opportunities to utilize healthcare data for AI-based interventions. While previous works applied machine learning (ML) to analyze healthcare records for suicide attempt risk prediction (SARP), they lack external validation. Additionally, advantages of deep learning (DL) over ML for tabular SARP remains understudied. We performed external validation of a state-of-the-art SARP model from the Mental Health Research Network using over 750,000 UMass Memorial Health patient encounters. We further compared ML vs DL, assessing cross-setting healthcare generalizability. We found existing models did not generalize well, ML significantly outperformed DL on most metrics, and DL achieved higher sensitivity. These findings underscore the need for developing robust, generalizable SARP models for diverse healthcare contexts, improving identification of individuals at risk.
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.