MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966152549 · doi:10.1177/0004867419864428

The utility of artificial intelligence in suicide risk prediction and the management of suicidal behaviors

2019· review· en· W2966152549 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe King's UniversityUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's HospitalWestern University
FundersOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsSuicide RiskSuicidal behaviorPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Suicide is a growing public health concern with a global prevalence of approximately 800,000 deaths per year. The current process of evaluating suicide risk is highly subjective, which can limit the efficacy and accuracy of prediction efforts. Consequently, suicide detection strategies are shifting toward artificial intelligence platforms that can identify patterns within 'big data' to generate risk algorithms that can determine the effects of risk (and protective) factors on suicide outcomes, predict suicide outbreaks and identify at-risk individuals or populations. In this review, we summarize the role of artificial intelligence in optimizing suicide risk prediction and behavior management. METHODS: This paper provides a general review of the literature. A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases with coverage from January 1990 to June 2019. Results were restricted to peer-reviewed, English-language articles. Conference and dissertation proceedings, case reports, protocol papers and opinion pieces were excluded. Reference lists were also examined for additional articles of relevance. RESULTS: At the individual level, prediction analytics help to identify individuals in crisis to intervene with emotional support, crisis and psychoeducational resources, and alerts for emergency assistance. At the population level, algorithms can identify at-risk groups or suicide hotspots, which help inform resource mobilization, policy reform and advocacy efforts. Artificial intelligence has also been used to support the clinical management of suicide across diagnostics and evaluation, medication management and behavioral therapy delivery. There could be several advantages of incorporating artificial intelligence into suicide care, which includes a time- and resource-effective alternative to clinician-based strategies, adaptability to various settings and demographics, and suitability for use in remote locations with limited access to mental healthcare supports. CONCLUSION: Based on the observed benefits to date, artificial intelligence has a demonstrated utility within suicide prediction and clinical management efforts and will continue to advance mental healthcare forward.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it