ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Modeling suicidal thoughts and behaviors in university students: integrating suicide theory with interpretable machine learning.
Article in BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
University students are at risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB), with prevalence rates higher than those in the general population. Machine learning (ML) enhances the accuracy of STB prediction and provides new possibilities and explanatory frameworks for this issue. This study extends prior research in two ways: (1) by employing, for the first time, a sample of Taiwanese university students and (2) by synthesizing suicide-related theoretical knowledge and empirical findings to identify individual, risk, and protective factors. Based on these elements, a comprehensive ML-based prediction model of STB among university students was developed with four analytic modes to evaluate the relative importance and contributions of three predictor categories. Using data from the NTU Students' Physical and Mental Health Assessment System, a total of 3,901 students were retained in the current study, with 13 self-report assessments administered. Classic logistic regression and five ML classifiers (e.g., bagged LR, RF, LightGBM, linear SVM, and RBF SVM) were utilized. Compared with traditional statistical methods, ML algorithms improved prediction of STB among high‑risk students. RF and LightGBM performed best, with similar results in Mode 2 (risk factor only) and Mode 4 (integrated individual, risk, and protective factors), both outperforming Mode 3 (protective factor only) and Mode 1 (individual factor only). Ultimately, this study enhances the interpretability of ML-based models for predicting STB. Moreover, it provides researchers with deeper insights for developing systematic prediction models and offers a screening tool for identifying university students at high risk of STB.
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.