Prediction of suicide attempts in a prospective cohort study with a nationally representative sample of the US population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is still little knowledge of objective suicide risk stratification. METHODS: This study aims to develop models using machine-learning approaches to predict suicide attempt (1) among survey participants in a nationally representative sample and (2) among participants with lifetime major depressive episodes. We used a cohort called the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) that was conducted in two waves and included a nationally representative sample of the adult population in the United States. Wave 1 involved 43 093 respondents and wave 2 involved 34 653 completed face-to-face reinterviews with wave 1 participants. Predictor variables included clinical, stressful life events, and sociodemographic variables from wave 1; outcome included suicide attempt between wave 1 and wave 2. RESULTS: The model built with elastic net regularization distinguished individuals who had attempted suicide from those who had not with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.89, balanced accuracy 81.86%, specificity 89.22%, and sensitivity 74.51% for the general population. For participants with lifetime major depressive episodes, AUC was 0.89, balanced accuracy 81.64%, specificity 85.86%, and sensitivity 77.42%. The most important predictor variables were a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and being of Asian descent for the model in all participants; and previous suicide attempt, borderline personality disorder, and overnight stay in hospital because of depressive symptoms for the model in participants with lifetime major depressive episodes. Random forest and artificial neural networks had similar performance. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for suicide attempt can be estimated with high accuracy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".