Explainable artificial intelligence models for predicting risk of suicide using health administrative data in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide is a complex, multidimensional event, and a significant challenge for prevention globally. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have emerged to harness large-scale datasets to enhance risk detection. In order to trust and act upon the predictions made with ML, more intuitive user interfaces must be validated. Thus, Interpretable AI is one of the crucial directions which could allow policy and decision makers to make reasonable and data-driven decisions that can ultimately lead to better mental health services planning and suicide prevention. This research aimed to develop sex-specific ML models for predicting the population risk of suicide and to interpret the models. Data were from the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System (QICDSS), covering up to 98% of the population in the province of Quebec and containing data for over 20,000 suicides between 2002 and 2019. We employed a case-control study design. Individuals were considered cases if they were aged 15+ and had died from suicide between January 1st, 2002, and December 31st, 2019 (n = 18339). Controls were a random sample of 1% of the Quebec population aged 15+ of each year, who were alive on December 31st of each year, from 2002 to 2019 (n = 1,307,370). We included 103 features, including individual, programmatic, systemic, and community factors, measured up to five years prior to the suicide events. We trained and then validated the sex-specific predictive risk model using supervised ML algorithms, including Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Multilayer perceptron (MLP). We computed operating characteristics, including sensitivity, specificity, and Positive Predictive Value (PPV). We then generated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to predict suicides and calibration measures. For interpretability, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was used with the global explanation to determine how much the input features contribute to the models' output and the largest absolute coefficients. The best sensitivity was 0.38 with logistic regression for males and 0.47 with MLP for females; the XGBoost Classifier with 0.25 for males and 0.19 for females had the best precision (PPV). This study demonstrated the useful potential of explainable AI models as tools for decision-making and population-level suicide prevention actions. The ML models included individual, programmatic, systemic, and community levels variables available routinely to decision makers and planners in a public managed care system. Caution shall be exercised in the interpretation of variables associated in a predictive model since they are not causal, and other designs are required to establish the value of individual treatments. The next steps are to produce an intuitive user interface for decision makers, planners and other stakeholders like clinicians or representatives of families and people with live experience of suicidal behaviors or death by suicide. For example, how variations in the quality of local area primary care programs for depression or substance use disorders or increased in regional mental health and addiction budgets would lower suicide rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".