Lauren M O'Reilly, Seena Fazel, Martin E Rickert, Ralf Kuja-Halkola, Martin Cederlof, Clara Hellner, Henrik Larsson, Paul Lichtenstein, Brian M D'Onofrio
{"title":"Evaluating Machine Learning for Predicting Youth Suicidal Behavior Up to 1 Year After Contact With Mental-Health Specialty Care.","authors":"Lauren M O'Reilly, Seena Fazel, Martin E Rickert, Ralf Kuja-Halkola, Martin Cederlof, Clara Hellner, Henrik Larsson, Paul Lichtenstein, Brian M D'Onofrio","doi":"10.1177/21677026241301298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we assessed the performance of several predictive modeling algorithms of suicide attempt resulting in inpatient hospitalization or suicide among youths ages 9 to 18 (<i>N</i> = 34,528) after contact (6-12 months) with a mental-health specialist in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2006 to 2012. Using 209 predictors across domains (e.g., clinical, demographic, family, neighborhood, social) identified from national registers, we applied standard logistic regression, regularized logistic regression, and machine-learning algorithms (i.e., random forests, gradient boosting, support vector machines). Standard logistic regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.72, 0.82]) and random-forest models (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = [0.74, 0.86]) demonstrated the highest AUCs. Sensitivities ranged from 0.33 (support vector machines) to 0.91 (standard logistic regression). Although the study was underpowered to detect a difference between logistic regression and machinelearning algorithms (outcome prevalence = 0.7%), performance metrics were similar across models. Logistic regression is not clearly worse than machine-learning approaches. Ongoing research is needed to examine how prediction models can augment clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":54234,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychological Science","volume":"13 3","pages":"614-631"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12327383/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026241301298","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this article, we assessed the performance of several predictive modeling algorithms of suicide attempt resulting in inpatient hospitalization or suicide among youths ages 9 to 18 (N = 34,528) after contact (6-12 months) with a mental-health specialist in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2006 to 2012. Using 209 predictors across domains (e.g., clinical, demographic, family, neighborhood, social) identified from national registers, we applied standard logistic regression, regularized logistic regression, and machine-learning algorithms (i.e., random forests, gradient boosting, support vector machines). Standard logistic regression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.72, 0.82]) and random-forest models (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = [0.74, 0.86]) demonstrated the highest AUCs. Sensitivities ranged from 0.33 (support vector machines) to 0.91 (standard logistic regression). Although the study was underpowered to detect a difference between logistic regression and machinelearning algorithms (outcome prevalence = 0.7%), performance metrics were similar across models. Logistic regression is not clearly worse than machine-learning approaches. Ongoing research is needed to examine how prediction models can augment clinical decision-making.
期刊介绍:
The Association for Psychological Science’s journal, Clinical Psychological Science, emerges from this confluence to provide readers with the best, most innovative research in clinical psychological science, giving researchers of all stripes a home for their work and a place in which to communicate with a broad audience of both clinical and other scientists.