MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308685890 · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-02214-3

Predicting criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatry: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

2022· review· en· W4308685890 on OpenAlexaff
Devon Watts, Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso, Diego Librenza‐Garcia, Pedro L. Ballester, Ives Cavalcante Passos, Félix Henrique Paim Kessler, J.P. Reilly, Gary Chaimowitz, Flávio Kapczinski

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisConfidence intervalPsychiatryMEDLINEForensic psychiatryMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although reducing criminal outcomes in individuals with mental illness have long been a priority for governments worldwide, there is still a lack of objective and highly accurate tools that can predict these events at an individual level. Predictive machine learning models may provide a unique opportunity to identify those at the highest risk of criminal activity and facilitate personalized rehabilitation strategies. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to describe the diagnostic accuracy of studies using machine learning techniques to predict criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatry. We performed meta-analyses using the mada, meta, and dmetatools packages in R to predict criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatric patients ( n = 2428) (Registration Number: CRD42019127169) by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in any language up to April 2022. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, studies used single-nucleotide polymorphisms, text analysis, psychometric scales, hospital records, and resting-state regional cerebral blood flow to build predictive models. Of the studies described in the systematic review, nine were included in the present meta-analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting violent and criminal outcomes in psychiatry was 0.816 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 70.57–88.15), with a partial AUC of 0.773, and average sensitivity of 73.33% (95% CI: 64.09–79.63), and average specificity of 72.90% (95% CI: 63.98–79.66), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled accuracy across models was 71.45% (95% CI: 60.88–83.86), with a tau squared (τ 2 ) of 0.0424 (95% CI: 0.0184–0.1553). Based on available evidence, we suggest that prospective models include evidence-based risk factors identified in prior actuarial models. Moreover, there is a need for a greater emphasis on identifying biological features and incorporating novel variables which have not been explored in prior literature. Furthermore, available models remain preliminary, and prospective validation with independent datasets, and across cultures, will be required prior to clinical implementation. Nonetheless, predictive machine learning models hold promise in providing clinicians and researchers with actionable tools to improve how we prevent, detect, or intervene in relevant crime and violent-related outcomes in psychiatry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207