A risk calculator to predict suicide attempts among individuals with<scp>early‐onset</scp>bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To build a one-year risk calculator (RC) to predict individualized risk for suicide attempt in early-onset bipolar disorder. METHODS: Youth numbering 394 with bipolar disorder who completed ≥2 follow-up assessments (median follow-up length = 13.1 years) in the longitudinal Course and Outcome of Bipolar Youth (COBY) study were included. Suicide attempt over follow-up was assessed via the A-LIFE Self-Injurious/Suicidal Behavior scale. Predictors from the literature on suicidal behavior in bipolar disorder that are readily assessed in clinical practice were selected and trichotomized as appropriate (presence past 6 months/lifetime history only/no lifetime history). The RC was trained via boosted multinomial classification trees; predictions were calibrated via Platt scaling. Half of the sample was used to train, and the other half to independently test the RC. RESULTS: There were 249 suicide attempts among 106 individuals. Ten predictors accounted for >90% of the cross-validated relative influence in the model (AUC = 0.82; in order of relative influence): (1) age of mood disorder onset; (2) non-suicidal self-injurious behavior (trichotomized); (3) current age; (4) psychosis (trichotomized); (5) socioeconomic status; (6) most severe depressive symptoms in past 6 months (trichotomized none/subthreshold/threshold); (7) history of suicide attempt (trichotomized); (8) family history of suicidal behavior; (9) substance use disorder (trichotomized); (10) lifetime history of physical/sexual abuse. For all trichotomized variables, presence in the past 6 months reliably predicted higher risk than lifetime history. CONCLUSIONS: This RC holds promise as a clinical and research tool for prospective identification of individualized high-risk periods for suicide attempt in early-onset bipolar disorder.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".