MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007747411 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100281

Predicting death by suicide following an emergency department visit for parasuicide with administrative health care system data and machine learning

2020· article· en· W3007747411 on OpenAlex
M.L. Sanderson, Andrew GM Bulloch, JianLi Wang, Kimberly G. Williams, Tyler Williamson, Scott B. Patten

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParasuicideMedicineEmergency departmentHealth careMedical emergencyPoison controlAmbulatory careSuicide preventionMachine learningSuicide attemptPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide and results in a large number of person years of life lost. There is an opportunity to evaluate whether administrative health care system data and machine learning can quantify suicide risk in a clinical setting. METHODS: The objective was to compare the performance of prediction models that quantify the risk of death by suicide within 90 days of an ED visit for parasuicide with predictors available in administrative health care system data.The modeling dataset was assembled from 5 administrative health care data systems. The data systems contained nearly all of the physician visits, ambulatory care visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and community pharmacy dispenses, of nearly the entire 4.07 million persons in Alberta, Canada. 101 predictors were selected, and these were assembled for each of the 8 quarters (2 years) prior to the quarter of death, resulting in 808 predictors in total for each person. Prediction model performance was validated with 10-fold cross-validation. FINDINGS: The optimal gradient boosted trees prediction model achieved promising discrimination (AUC: 0.88) and calibration that could lead to clinical applications. The 5 most important predictors in the optimal gradient boosted trees model each came from a different administrative health care data system. INTERPRETATION: The combination of predictors from multiple administrative data systems and the combination of personal and ecologic predictors resulted in promising prediction performance. Further research is needed to develop prediction models optimized for implementation in clinical settings. FUNDING: There was no funding for this study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.275 · 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