Detection of Suicidal Ideation in Clinical Interviews for Depression Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Assessing patients' suicide risk is challenging, especially among those who deny suicidal ideation. Primary care providers have poor agreement in screening suicide risk. Patients' speech may provide more objective, language-based clues about their underlying suicidal ideation. Text analysis to detect suicide risk in depression is lacking in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to determine whether suicidal ideation can be detected via language features in clinical interviews for depression using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited 305 participants between October 2020 and May 2022 (mean age 53.0, SD 11.77 years; female: n=176, 57%), of which 197 had lifetime depression and 108 were healthy. This study was part of ongoing research on characterizing depression with a case-control design. In this study, 236 participants were nonsuicidal, while 56 and 13 had low and high suicide risks, respectively. The structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) was adopted to assess suicide risk and depression severity. Suicide risk was clinician rated based on a suicide-related question (H11). The interviews were transcribed and the words in participants' verbal responses were translated into psychologically meaningful categories using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Results: Ordinal logistic regression revealed significant suicide-related language features in participants' responses to the HAMD questions. Increased use of anger words when talking about work and activities posed the highest suicide risk (odds ratio [OR] 2.91, 95% CI 1.22-8.55; P=.02). Random forest models demonstrated that text analysis of the direct responses to H11 was effective in identifying individuals with high suicide risk (AUC 0.76-0.89; P<.001) and detecting suicide risk in general, including both low and high suicide risk (AUC 0.83-0.92; P<.001). More importantly, suicide risk can be detected with satisfactory performance even without patients' disclosure of suicidal ideation. Based on the response to the question on hypochondriasis, ML models were trained to identify individuals with high suicide risk (AUC 0.76; P<.001). Conclusions: This study examined the perspective of using NLP and ML to analyze the texts from clinical interviews for suicidality detection, which has the potential to provide more accurate and specific markers for suicidal ideation detection. The findings may pave the way for developing high-performance assessment of suicide risk for automated detection, including online chatbot-based interviews for universal screening.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».