ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Machine learning-based prediction of suicide attempts among adolescents: a national study using explainable artificial intelligence.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and evaluate machine learning models for predicting adolescent suicide attempts and to examine predictor contributions using explainable artificial intelligence. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional study used pooled data from the 2017-2024 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-Based Survey (n=448, 798). Models including logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost were developed to classify suicide attempts. Performance was evaluated using AUC, F1 score, and sensitivity-oriented screening thresholds to reflect population-level screening purposes. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) quantified predictor contributions. Results: The models showed moderate predictive performance, with XGBoost achieving the highest F1 score and random forest showing the highest sensitivity under the screening condition. SHAP analysis indicated that hopelessness contributed most strongly to prediction, followed by school violence and perceived stress. Additional contributors included self-rated health, household economic status, sleep satisfaction, and behavioral indicators. Under the screening condition, sensitivity improved, although positive predictive values remained low. Conclusion: Machine learning models demonstrated moderate performance in predicting adolescent suicide attempts. Psychological and social variables contributed most strongly to prediction, and SHAP improved the interpretability of model outputs, supporting their potential utility for population-level screening support.
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.