Comparing machine learning to a rule-based approach for predicting suicidal behavior among adolescents: Results from a longitudinal population-based survey
Journal of Affective Disorders, ISSN: 0165-0327, Vol: 295, Page: 1415-1420
2021
- 23Citations
- 129Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations23
- Citation Indexes21
- 21
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures129
- Readers129
- 129
Article Description
Suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts are one of the most prominent public health concerns in adolescents and therefore early detection is important to initiate preventive interventions and closer monitoring. We examined whether the Machine Learning models Random Forest and Lasso Regression better predict future suicidal behavior than a simple decision rule that classifies every adolescent with history of suicide ideation at baseline as at risk (current practice). We used data from a general population of students in second and fourth year of secondary education in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Both the Random Forest and the Lasso Regression resulted in slightly better prediction. The AUC of the Random Forest (0.79) and Lasso regression (0.76) were both higher than the AUC of the decision rule (0.64). The Random Forest achieved slightly (but non-significantly) higher sensitivity than the decision rule (0.37 versus 0.34), with the same specificity (0.94). With Lasso Regression the sensitivity increased significantly (0.52), but at the expense of the specificity (0.85). The loss of cases after merging the data, the use of self-reported data, confidential data collection and the use of only four questions to measure suicidal behavior. This is the first study applying Machine Learning techniques to predict future suicidal behavior on survey data collected in a general population of adolescents. Our study showed that integrating machine learning techniques in screening practice will result in a small improvement in the ability to predict suicide. The models need to be further optimized to improve accuracy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032721009770; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.018; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85116504251&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34620490; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032721009770; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.018
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know