Meta-analysis of the strength of exploratory suicide prediction models; from clinicians to computers

Michelle Corke · Helena N. Angel-Scott · Shelley Xia · Matthew M B Large

56 citations0/0 files storedBJPsych Open

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Suicide and Self-Harm Studies Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Machine Learning in Healthcare

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Suicide prediction models have been formulated in a variety of ways and are heterogeneous in the strength of their predictions. Machine learning has been a proposed as a way of improving suicide predictions by incorporating more suicide risk factors. AIMS: To determine whether machine learning and the number of suicide risk factors included in suicide prediction models are associated with the strength of the resulting predictions. METHOD: Random-effect meta-analysis of exploratory suicide prediction models constructed by combining two or more suicide risk factors or using clinical judgement (Prospero Registration CRD42017059665). Studies were located by searching for papers indexed in PubMed before 15 August 2020 with the term suicid* in the title. RESULTS: In total, 86 papers reported 102 suicide prediction models and included 20 210 411 people and 106 902 suicides. The pooled odds ratio was 7.7 (95% CI 6.7-8.8) with high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5). Machine learning was associated with a non-significantly higher odds ratio of 11.6 (95% CI 6.0-22.3) and clinical judgement with a non-significantly lower odds ratio of 4.7 (95% CI 2.1-10.9). Models including a larger number of suicide risk factors had a higher odds ratio when machine-learning studies were included (P = 0.02). Among non-machine-learning studies, suicide prediction models including fewer risk factors performed just as well as those including more risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning might have the potential to improve the performance of suicide prediction models by increasing the number of included suicide risk factors but its superiority over other methods is unproven.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 56 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2014The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration 2016Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research.2006Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data

Cited by

2023Machine learning-based prediction for self-harm and suicide attempts in adolescents

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.