Predictors of suicide attempt in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: an exploratory study with machine learning analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are at increased risk for suicide attempt (SA) compared to the general population. However, the significant risk factors for SA in this population remains unclear - whether these factors are associated with the disorder itself or related to extrinsic factors, such as comorbidities and sociodemographic variables. This study aimed to identify predictors of SA in OCD patients using a machine learning algorithm. METHODS: A total of 959 outpatients with OCD were included. An elastic net model was performed to recognize the predictors of SA among OCD patients, using clinical and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: The prevalence of SA in our sample was 10.8%. Relevant predictors of SA founded by the elastic net algorithm were the following: previous suicide planning, previous suicide thoughts, lifetime depressive episode, and intermittent explosive disorder. Our elastic net model had a good performance and found an area under the curve of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate risk factors for SA among OCD patients using machine learning algorithms. Our results demonstrate an accurate risk algorithm can be created using clinical and sociodemographic variables. All aspects of suicidal phenomena need to be carefully investigated by clinicians in every evaluation of OCD patients. Particular attention should be given to comorbidity with depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".