Predicting Suicide Attempts With the SAD PERSONS Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The SAD PERSONS scale is a widely used risk assessment tool for suicidal behavior despite a paucity of supporting data. The objective of this study was to examine the ability of the scale in predicting suicide attempts. METHOD: Participants consisted of consecutive referrals (N=4,019) over 2 years (January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010) to psychiatric services in the emergency departments of the 2 largest tertiary care hospitals in the province of Manitoba, Canada. SAD PERSONS and Modified SAD PERSONS (MSPS) scale scores were recorded for individuals at their index and all subsequent presentations. The 2 main outcome measures in the study included current suicide attempts (at index presentation) and future suicide attempts (within the next 6 months). The ability of the scales to predict suicide attempts was evaluated with logistic regression, sensitivity and specificity analyses, and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: 566 people presented with suicide attempts (14.1% of the sample). Both SAD PERSONS and MSPS showed poor predictive ability for future suicide attempts. Compared to low risk scores, high risk baseline scores had low sensitivity (19.6% and 40.0%, respectively) and low positive predictive value (5.3% and 7.4%, respectively). SAD PERSONS did not predict suicide attempts better than chance (area under the curve =0.572; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.64; P value nonsignificant). Stepwise regression identified 5 original scale items that accounted for the greatest proportion of future suicide attempt variance. High risk scores using this model had high sensitivity (93.5%) and were associated with a 5-fold higher likelihood of future suicide attempt presentation (odds ratio =5.58; 95% CI, 2.24-13.86; P<.001). CONCLUSION: In their current form, SAD PERSONS and MSPS do not accurately predict future suicide attempts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".