MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401159079 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.27.24311110

Defining and Assessing International Classification of Disease Suicidality Phenotypes for Genetic Studies

2024· preprint· en· W4401159079 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric T. Monson, Sarah M. C. Colbert, Peter B. Barr, Cosmin A. Bejan, Ole A. Andreassen, Olatunde Ayinde, Zuriel Ceja, Hilary Coon, Emily DiBlasi, A. O. Izotova, Erin A. Kaufman, Maria Koromina, Woojae Myung, John I. Nürnberger, Alessandro Serretti, Jordan W. Smoller, Murray B. Stein, Clement C. Zai, Mihaela Aslan, Tim B. Bigdeli, Philip D. Harvey, Nathan A. Kimbrel, Pujan R. Patel, Douglas M. Ruderfer, Anna R. Docherty, Niamh Mullins, J. John Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthGenentechCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaSage TherapeuticsNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionBiogenU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsJazz PharmaceuticalsH. Lundbeck A/SNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhenotypePsychologyGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Suicidality, including suicidal ideation (SI), attempt (SA), and death (SD), represents complex and partially overlapping phenotypes. This complexity contributes to study population heterogeneity in suicidality research, impeding replication efforts and data consolidation by research consortia. The standardization of suicidality definitions would help but has been insufficiently addressed in existing literature. Here, the Suicide Workgroup of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) provides International Classification of Disease (ICD) definitions, a critical real-world data source, for SA and SI. Methods: The PGC Suicide Workgroup used published definitions coupled with expert consensus to develop ICD lists to serve as suicidality phenotype definitions. One SI and two SA lists were produced and evaluated for performance against patient screening responses in two independent cohorts (N = 9,151 and 12,621) with differing ascertainment strategies. Outcomes: ICD list suicidality definitions were produced. Evaluation of generated ICD lists versus patient responses across two cohorts demonstrated varied sensitivity (15·4% to 71·1%), specificity (67·6% to 96·3%), and positive predictive values (0·57-0·92). SI ICD code performance also varied in sensitivity (29·4%-86·1%), specificity (64·2% to 90·6%), and positive predictive values (0·67 to 0·98). Interpretation: Guidelines were developed to provide more consistent and comparable suicidality definitions. However, real-world application of ICD codes leads to a wide range of performance, dependent on cohort characteristics, that will need to be carefully considered in implementation. Future efforts would benefit from consistent training in use of ICD codes between sites to improve generalizability, and should include validation in diverse populations. Funding: This work was funded by NIMH R01MH132733 (Mullins), R01MH132733 (Ruderfer), R01MH123619 (Docherty), R01MH123489 (Coon), R01MH124839 (PGC4), R01MH118233 and MH117599 (Smoller), Brain and Behavior Research Foundation No. 31248 (Monson), the Huntsman Mental Health Institute, National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program Grant #1842169, and by grant # I01BX005881 and #IK6BX006523 (Kimbrel) from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→