A machine learning approach to identification of self-harm and suicidal ideation among military and police Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY Combat Veterans are vulnerable to suicidal thoughts and behaviour. Many who die by suicide deny having suicidal ideation (SI). Typically, researchers try to find variables indicating the presence of SI using traditional statistical approaches. These approaches do not possess the capacity to detect highly complex multivariable interactions. In contrast, machine learning (ML) is designed to detect such patterns and can consequently yield much higher predictive accuracy. In this study, the authors trained ML algorithms using 192 variables extracted from questionnaires administered to 738 Veterans and serving personnel to detect the presence of self-harm and SI (SHSI). Using the 10 most predictive non-suicide-related items, the ML algorithms could detect SHSI with 75.3% accuracy. Most of these items reflect psychological phenomena that can change quickly over time, allowing repeated risk reassessment from day to day. The study’s findings suggest that ML methods may play an important role in the discovery, within a large data set, of predictive patterns that might be useful in suicide risk assessment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".