ArticleAnnals of general psychiatry2026
Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning approaches for suicide‑related outcomes: a meta‑analysis.
Article in Annals of general psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis aimed to provide clinically interpretable estimates (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), predictive value (PV) and post‑test probabilities) for machine‑learning (ML) models predicting suicide‑related outcomes.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science identified studies published between January 2010 and December 2024. Eligible studies used a single-gate design (cross-sectional or longitudinal), included at least 100 participants, and reported diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC)) for ML algorithms. Models examined included Support Vector Machines (SVM), Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Gradient Boosting, and Ensemble approaches. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.
resultsOf 500 screened records, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. Ensemble models demonstrated the highest pooled AUC (0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96), with specificity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.29-0.71). Gradient-boosting and ensemble approaches showed strong discriminative performance overall; model-specific estimates are reported in the Results. At a pre-test probability of 25%, post-test probabilities for a positive result ranged from 64% (Logistic Regression) to 88% (Ensemble Models).
conclusionMachine-learning approaches demonstrated promising diagnostic accuracy for suicide-related outcomes in heterogeneous clinical populations. However, because primary studies rarely reported diagnosis- or outcome-specific performance, these findings should not be assumed to generalize across specific disorders or to suicide mortality. Future research should incorporate diagnosis-stratified and outcome-resolved validation to clarify clinical applicability.
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.