Evidence for the biopsychosocial model of suicide: a review of whole person modeling studies using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditional approaches to modeling suicide-related thoughts and behaviors focus on few data types from often-siloed disciplines. While psychosocial aspects of risk for these phenotypes are frequently studied, there is a lack of research assessing their impact in the context of biological factors, which are important in determining an individual's fulsome risk profile. To directly test this biopsychosocial model of suicide and identify the relative importance of predictive measures when considered together, a transdisciplinary, multivariate approach is needed. Here, we systematically review the emerging literature on large-scale studies using machine learning to integrate measures of psychological, social, and biological factors simultaneously in the study of suicide. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies that used machine learning to model suicide-related outcomes in human populations including at least one predictor from each of biological, psychological, and sociological data domains. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for reports published between August 2013 and August 30, 2023. We evaluated populations studied, features emerging most consistently as risk or resilience factors, methods used, and strength of evidence for or against the biopsychosocial model of suicide. Results: Out of 518 full-text articles screened, we identified a total of 20 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, including eight studies conducted in general population samples and 12 in clinical populations. Common important features identified included depressive and anxious symptoms, comorbid psychiatric disorders, social behaviors, lifestyle factors such as exercise, alcohol intake, smoking exposure, and marital and vocational status, and biological factors such as hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis activity markers, sleep-related measures, and selected genetic markers. A minority of studies conducted iterative modeling testing each data type for contribution to model performance, instead of reporting basic measures of relative feature importance. Conclusion: Studies combining biopsychosocial measures to predict suicide-related phenotypes are beginning to proliferate. This literature provides some early empirical evidence for the biopsychosocial model of suicide, though it is marred by harmonization challenges. For future studies, more specific definitions of suicide-related outcomes, inclusion of a greater breadth of biological data, and more diversity in study populations will be needed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".