Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42245253›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Real-world implementation and predictive performance of suicide prediction models: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

KangHyun Kim, JuHee Kim, Myung-Gwan Kim, Hyun Wook Han

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

KangHyun KimDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-3346
JuHee KimDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1065-0096
Myung-Gwan KimDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6649-4715
Hyun Wook HanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6918-5694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Machine learning (ML) models for suicide risk prediction show promise, but their real-world discriminative ability and the sources of performance variation remain unclear. Methods: We systematically searched databases for studies evaluating statistical or ML suicide prediction models in real-world clinical settings. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) overall and by outcome type. We conducted exploratory univariable meta-regression with cluster-robust inference for outcome type, evaluation timing, and model type. Sensitivity analyses assessed the influence of within-study dependence. Results: Nine studies (20 evaluations) were included. The overall pooled AUC was 0.849 (95% CI 0.827-0.869). Pooled AUCs were 0.865 (0.840-0.887) for suicide attempts, 0.835 (0.825-0.844) for suicidal ideation, and 0.842 (0.797-0.878) for suicide death. Heterogeneity was extreme (I Conclusions: Suicide prediction models show good real-world discrimination, but performance varies substantially across evaluations. We found no clear evidence that outcome type, evaluation timing, or model type explained this heterogeneity. These findings support rigorous local validation and workflow-sensitive implementation rather than assuming that more complex algorithms will perform better in practice.

Indexed as

implementation sciencemachine learningmeta-analysissuicidesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42245253
PMCPMC13230670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.