MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414351117 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1634164

Nomogram for estimating the risk of suicide attempts in major depressive disorder: integrating demographic, clinical and biochemical markers – a cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4414351117 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nan Lyu, Qian Zhao, Rina Dutta, Han Wang, Gang Wang, Allan H. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilVictoria General Hospital FoundationBeijing Municipal Administration of HospitalsNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaKing's College LondonCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research CentreSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustMichael Smith Health Research BCNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionWellcome Trust
KeywordsNomogramProspective cohort studySuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionMajor depressive disorderHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide Risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a significant risk factor for suicide attempts (SA), making early identification of those most at risk crucial for effective clinical intervention. This study aimed to identify demographic, clinical, and biochemical correlates of SA among inpatients with MDD. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from 968 inpatients diagnosed with MDD, including 392 with documented suicide attempts (MDD-SA) and 576 without suicidal behaviors (MDD-NSA). Demographic characteristics, clinical history, and peripheral biochemical markers were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to assess associations with SA. Variable selection was performed using penalized logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation, and the selected variables were then entered into a binary logistic regression model to illustrate the relative contribution of significant factors. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Significant differences were found between MDD-S and MDD-N in marital status (42.3% vs. 57.7%, p = 0.004), alcohol consumption (15.82% vs. 8.85%, p < 0.001), tobacco use (20.67% vs. 13.73%, p = 0.004), education level (p < 0.001), life events (79.59% vs. 65.28%, p < 0.001), and folate levels (p < 0.001). MDD-S patients were more likely to undergo modified electroconvulsive therapy (61.73% vs. 39.41%, p < 0.001) and mood stabilizers (26.02% vs. 18.92%, p = 0.009). The nomogram incorporated tobacco use, alcohol consumption, education level, life events, and folate levels, showing good discrimination (C-index = 0.709, bootstrap = 0.703). ROC analysis demonstrated an AUC of 0.709 (95% CI: 0.677-0.742), and DCA confirmed clinical utility. Conclusion: Several routinely available variables, including tobacco use, alcohol consumption, education level, life events, and folate level, were associated with suicide attempts in MDD inpatients. Our findings highlight these important correlates, which may help clinicians in recognizing patients at elevated risk. The nomogram provided in this study should be regarded only as a visualization to better illustrate the contribution of these factors, rather than as a clinical assessment tool. Prospective multicenter studies are needed for further validation.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychiatry→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→