MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407387073 · doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyae059.130

APPLICATION OF MACHINE LEARNING TO LARGE SCALE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD DATA PREDICTS RISK TO READMISSION FOR SUICIDE ATTEMPT

2025· article· en· W4407387073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zachary Kaminsky, Mohammadreza Fani Sani, Patricia Burhunduli, Sharah Mar-Kaminsky, Robyn J. McQuaid, Jennifer L. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueensway-Carleton HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Health recordsElectronic health recordSuicide RiskComputer scienceData sciencePsychologyMachine learningMedicineMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison controlHealth careCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The period following discharge from a psychiatric inpatient admission is a high risk time for suicidal behaviors and death by suicide up to 200 times the global rate. Leveraging electronic health record (EHR) data in concert with machine learning techniques may help predict post discharge suicide attempts (SA) as well as modifiable factors that may be targeted during an inpatient stay in order to reduce risk. Objectives The primary objective of this project was to leverage thirteen years of EHR data from psychiatric inpatient admissions in Ontario Canada and generate models for prediction of risk to emergency room (ER) contacts for suicide attempt (SA), deemed (ER-SA). The secondary objective was to generate a method to optimize clinical decision points to reduce risk of SA post discharge. Methods The total sample of N=353,806 inpatient admissions was randomly split (66:33%) into a training set (N= 249,024 ) and test set (N=104,782 ) with multiple admissions from the same individual being unique to either set. We generated two random forest models using N=480 unique EHR variables and modeled two outcomes including 1.) a binary outcome if an inpatient admission was followed by an SA and 2.) time in days until the earliest post discharge appearance of the same individual in the ER data sets. Results The binary outcome model identified N=1386 individuals from the test set whose next admission would be for SA from 102718 that would not (AUC = 82.2, 95% CI 0.81-0.83). A sliding window analysis assessed time model predictive accuracy as a function of days from discharge with the strongest robust prediction observed at 5 days ( AUC = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, N=15 ER-SA in timeframe, N=104,139 no-ER-SA in timeframe), however, prediction scores at 1 year (AUC= 0.78) were not significantly weaker than those in the first few weeks (AUC=0.88). Notably, the time modeled time to ER-SA was significantly associated with the actual time to next ER-SA among all individuals whose next admission was an ER-SA (rho=0.14, p=4.5x10-7). We therefore used the binary model to identify those likely at risk of next admission ER-SA, followed by application of the time model, demonstrating a robust association of prediction AUC as a function of days from discharge out to 21 days (rho= -0.90, p=2.6 x10-7).Using the time based model, a forward stepping algorithm maximized predicted outcome time by iterating all possible modifiable clinical decisions to generate an ‘ideal’ low-risk clinical state per individual. The algorithm was evaluated on N=1386 next admission ER-SA individuals in the test set. A significant negative correlation between the time to ER-SA and proportion of ‘ideal’ low-risk EHR variables was observed (Rho=-0.07, p=0.0061), validating the ‘ideal’ low-risk method. Conclusions Using a two model approach, we generated a robust method capable of prognosticating short term risk. Application of the ‘Ideal’ low risk method offers the potential to leverage big data generated machine learning models to direct inpatient stay clinical decisions in order to reduce risk to SA post discharge.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of NeuropsychopharmacologySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207