Predicting criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatry: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.026 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".