MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007150960 · doi:10.2196/15901

Testing Suicide Risk Prediction Algorithms Using Phone Measurements With Patients in Acute Mental Health Settings: Feasibility Study

2020· article· en· W3007150960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alina Haines‐Delmont, Gurdit Chahal, Ashley Jane Bruen, Abbie Wall, Christina T. Khan, Ramesh Sadashiv, David Fearnley

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMachine learningAlgorithmMoodMetric (unit)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePoison controlWeightingSuicide preventionHealth careApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital phenotyping and machine learning are currently being used to augment or even replace traditional analytic procedures in many domains, including health care. Given the heavy reliance on smartphones and mobile devices around the world, this readily available source of data is an important and highly underutilized source that has the potential to improve mental health risk prediction and prevention and advance mental health globally. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to apply machine learning in an acute mental health setting for suicide risk prediction. This study uses a nascent approach, adding to existing knowledge by using data collected through a smartphone in place of clinical data, which have typically been collected from health care records. METHODS: We created a smartphone app called Strength Within Me, which was linked to Fitbit, Apple Health kit, and Facebook, to collect salient clinical information such as sleep behavior and mood, step frequency and count, and engagement patterns with the phone from a cohort of inpatients with acute mental health (n=66). In addition, clinical research interviews were used to assess mood, sleep, and suicide risk. Multiple machine learning algorithms were tested to determine the best fit. RESULTS: K-nearest neighbors (KNN; k=2) with uniform weighting and the Euclidean distance metric emerged as the most promising algorithm, with 68% mean accuracy (averaged over 10,000 simulations of splitting the training and testing data via 10-fold cross-validation) and an average area under the curve of 0.65. We applied a combined 5×2 F test to test the model performance of KNN against the baseline classifier that guesses training majority, random forest, support vector machine and logistic regression, and achieved F statistics of 10.7 (P=.009) and 17.6 (P=.003) for training majority and random forest, respectively, rejecting the null of performance being the same. Therefore, we have taken the first steps in prototyping a system that could continuously and accurately assess the risk of suicide via mobile devices. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting for suicidality is an underaddressed area of research to which this paper makes a useful contribution. This is part of the first generation of studies to suggest that it is feasible to utilize smartphone-generated user input and passive sensor data to generate a risk algorithm among inpatients at suicide risk. The model reveals fair concordance between phone-derived and research-generated clinical data, and with iterative development, it has the potential for accurate discriminant risk prediction. However, although full automation and independence of clinical judgment or input would be a worthy development for those individuals who are less likely to access specialist mental health services, and for providing a timely response in a crisis situation, the ethical and legal implications of such advances in the field of psychiatry need to be acknowledged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207