Observational studyMedicine2026
Temporal maintenance of an adolescent suicide attempt screening score in national surveys: An observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening scores may retain risk ranking while their probabilities become inaccurate in later populations. The information needed to repair this temporal drift is rarely quantified for adolescent suicide screening. We analyzed 5 independent national Youth Risk Behavior Survey cross sections from 2015 through 2023. Of 81,401 sampled students, 68,682 had observed past year attempt status. A survey weighted 2015 ridge score based on 14 harmonized predictors was frozen and transported to 4 later surveys. For each later survey, 50 repeated 5-fold evaluations that separated primary sampling units compared no update, intercept recalibration, intercept and slope recalibration, and full refitting of the same specification using 250 to 4000 target labels. Direct suicide items and identity attributes were excluded. The analysis included 6855 reported attempts. Frozen score areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve remained 0.852 to 0.860, but average risk was overestimated in 2017, 2019, and 2023. Predictor distribution and conditional model components opposed each other in 3 surveys. With 1000 labels, intercept recalibration met a prespecified descriptive calibration rule in 76 to 88% of repetitions; rates were 92 to 100% with 2000 labels. At 250 labels, refitting reduced median area under the curve by 0.036 to 0.043 and increased Brier score by 0.0047 to 0.0060. Intercept recalibration outperformed refitting in all 50 paired repetitions. Alternative ridge penalties did not remove this instability. Stable discrimination did not ensure stable absolute risk. Intercept recalibration was more reliable than coefficient refitting with scarce new outcomes. Maintenance requires reserved current data and an update strategy matched to the observed drift.
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.