ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Predictive models of suicidal ideation risk in perinatal-stage women based on sociodemographic and clinical data.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Suicidal ideation in women during the perinatal period has become a growing public health problem, with a prevalence ranging from 8 to 19%. Its etiology is multifactorial and carries additional consequences for both the newborn and the woman beyond death itself. Aim: This study aims to predict the risk of suicidal ideation in perinatal women by using artificial intelligence models based on sociodemographic and clinical data. Methods: An analytical observational study was conducted with a sample of 908 Spanish women during the perinatal period, collecting relevant data. To predict the risk of suicidal ideation, five machine learning models (OneR, JRIP, FURIA, J48 and Random Forest) were employed, as they provide rules or trees that can be easily followed to gather additional information. The metrics used to evaluate the performance of the models included accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score. Results: The models show an accuracy of around 60% in most cases. The model that performs the worst is OneR, with an accuracy of less than 50%. The Random Forest model stood out for its higher accuracy. The metrics of this model (Random Forest) were Accuracy (%) 0.639 ± 0.05, Precision: 0.634, Recall: 0.634 F1:0.634 and AUPRC: 0.632. Factors identified as predictors of suicidal ideation risk included low birth weight, history of mental health problems, problems of intimate partner violence, low income and smoking. Conclusion: In conclusion, predictive models based on sociodemographic data and clinical variables show a moderate ability to predict suicidal ideation risk in perinatal women.
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.