Designing a Clinical Decision Support Tool That Leverages Machine Learning for Suicide Risk Prediction: Development Study in Partnership With Native American Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning algorithms for suicide risk prediction have been developed with notable improvements in accuracy. Implementing these algorithms to enhance clinical care and reduce suicide has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to design a clinical decision support tool and appropriate care pathways for community-based suicide surveillance and case management systems operating on Native American reservations. METHODS: Participants included Native American case managers and supervisors (N=9) who worked on suicide surveillance and case management programs on 2 Native American reservations. We used in-depth interviews to understand how case managers think about and respond to suicide risk. The results from interviews informed a draft clinical decision support tool, which was then reviewed with supervisors and combined with appropriate care pathways. RESULTS: Case managers reported acceptance of risk flags based on a predictive algorithm in their surveillance system tools, particularly if the information was available in a timely manner and used in conjunction with their clinical judgment. Implementation of risk flags needed to be programmed on a dichotomous basis, so the algorithm could produce output indicating high versus low risk. To dichotomize the continuous predicted probabilities, we developed a cutoff point that favored specificity, with the understanding that case managers' clinical judgment would help increase sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk prediction algorithms show promise, but implementation to guide clinical care remains relatively elusive. Our study demonstrates the utility of working with partners to develop and guide the operationalization of risk prediction algorithms to enhance clinical care in a community setting.
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 | 0.040 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".