MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning Assessment of Early Life Factors Predicting Suicide Attempt in Adolescence or Young Adulthood

2021· article· en· W3134797990 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie C. Navarro, Isabelle Ouellet‐Morin, Marie‐Claude Geoffroy, Michel Boivin, Richard E. Tremblay, Sylvana M. Côté, Massimiliano Orri

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPopulationLongitudinal studyTemperamentPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyDemographyInjury preventionMedicineClinical psychologyMedical emergencyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Although longitudinal studies have reported associations between early life factors (ie, in-utero/perinatal/infancy) and long-term suicidal behavior, they have concentrated on 1 or few selected factors, and established associations, but did not investigate if early-life factors predict suicidal behavior. Objective: To identify and evaluate the ability of early-life factors to predict suicide attempt in adolescents and young adults from the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, a population-based longitudinal study from Québec province, Canada. Participants were followed-up from birth to age 20 years. Random forest classification algorithms were developed to predict suicide attempt. To avoid overfitting, prediction performance indices were assessed across 50 randomly split subsamples, and then the mean was calculated. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to June 2020. Exposures: Factors considered in the analysis included 150 variables, spanning virtually all early life domains, including pregnancy and birth information; child, parents, and neighborhood characteristics; parenting and family functioning; parents' mental health; and child temperament, as assessed by mothers, fathers, and hospital birth records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was self-reported suicide attempt by age 20 years. Results: Among 1623 included youths aged 20 years, 845 (52.1%) were female and 778 (47.9%) were male. Models show moderate prediction performance. The areas under the curve for the prediction of suicide attempt were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) for females and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.62) for males. The models showed low sensitivity (females, 0.50; males, 0.32), moderate positive predictive values (females, 0.60; males, 0.62), and good specificity (females, 0.76; males, 0.82) and negative predicted values (females, 0.75; males, 0.71). The most important factors contributing to the prediction included socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the family (eg, mother and father education and age, socioeconomic status, neighborhood characteristics), parents' psychological state (specifically parents' antisocial behaviors) and parenting practices. Birth-related variables also contributed to the prediction of suicidal behavior (eg, prematurity). Sex differences were also identified, with family-related socioeconomic and demographic characteristics being the top factors for females and parents' antisocial behavior being the top factor for males. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that early life factors contributed modestly to the prediction of suicidal behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Although these factors may inform the understanding of the etiological processes of suicide, their utility in the long-term prediction of suicide attempt was limited.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207