OBJECTIVE: The study sought to evaluate how availability of different types of health records data affect the accuracy of machine learning models predicting suicidal behavior. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from 7 large health systems identified 19 061 056 outpatient visits to mental health specialty or general medical providers between 2009 and 2015. Machine learning models (logistic regression with penalized LASSO [least absolute shrinkage and selection operator] variable selection) were developed to predict suicide death (n = 1240) or probable suicide attempt (n = 24 133) in the following 90 days. Base models were used only historical insurance claims data and were then augmented with data regarding sociodemographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, and neighborhood characteristics), past patient-reported outcome questionnaires from electronic health records, and data (diagnoses and questionnaires) recorded during the visit. RESULTS: For prediction of any attempt following mental health specialty visits, a model limited to historical insurance claims data performed approximately as well (C-statistic 0.843) as a model using all available data (C-statistic 0.850). For prediction of suicide attempt following a general medical visit, addition of data recorded during the visit yielded a meaningful improvement over a model using all data up to the prior day (C-statistic 0.853 vs 0.838). DISCUSSION: Results may not generalize to setting with less comprehensive data or different patterns of care. Even the poorest-performing models were superior to brief self-report questionnaires or traditional clinical assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of suicide risk prediction models in mental health specialty settings may be less technically demanding than expected. In general medical settings, however, delivery of optimal risk predictions at the point of care may require more sophisticated informatics capability.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to evaluate how availability of different types of health records data affect the accuracy of machine learning models predicting suicidal behavior. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from 7 large health systems identified 19 061 056 outpatient visits to mental health specialty or general medical providers between 2009 and 2015. Machine learning models (logistic regression with penalized LASSO [least absolute shrinkage and selection operator] variable selection) were developed to predict suicide death (n = 1240) or probable suicide attempt (n = 24 133) in the following 90 days. Base models were used only historical insurance claims data and were then augmented with data regarding sociodemographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, and neighborhood characteristics), past patient-reported outcome questionnaires from electronic health records, and data (diagnoses and questionnaires) recorded during the visit. RESULTS: For prediction of any attempt following mental health specialty visits, a model limited to historical insurance claims data performed approximately as well (C-statistic 0.843) as a model using all available data (C-statistic 0.850). For prediction of suicide attempt following a general medical visit, addition of data recorded during the visit yielded a meaningful improvement over a model using all data up to the prior day (C-statistic 0.853 vs 0.838). DISCUSSION: Results may not generalize to setting with less comprehensive data or different patterns of care. Even the poorest-performing models were superior to brief self-report questionnaires or traditional clinical assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of suicide risk prediction models in mental health specialty settings may be less technically demanding than expected. In general medical settings, however, delivery of optimal risk predictions at the point of care may require more sophisticated informatics capability.
Authors: Gregory E Simon; Eric Johnson; Jean M Lawrence; Rebecca C Rossom; Brian Ahmedani; Frances L Lynch; Arne Beck; Beth Waitzfelder; Rebecca Ziebell; Robert B Penfold; Susan M Shortreed Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Brian K Ahmedani; Gregory E Simon; Christine Stewart; Arne Beck; Beth E Waitzfelder; Rebecca Rossom; Frances Lynch; Ashli Owen-Smith; Enid M Hunkeler; Ursula Whiteside; Belinda H Operskalski; M Justin Coffey; Leif I Solberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joseph C Franklin; Jessica D Ribeiro; Kathryn R Fox; Kate H Bentley; Evan M Kleiman; Xieyining Huang; Katherine M Musacchio; Adam C Jaroszewski; Bernard P Chang; Matthew K Nock Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: John F McCarthy; Robert M Bossarte; Ira R Katz; Caitlin Thompson; Janet Kemp; Claire M Hannemann; Christopher Nielson; Michael Schoenbaum Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Yuval Barak-Corren; Victor M Castro; Solomon Javitt; Alison G Hoffnagle; Yael Dai; Roy H Perlis; Matthew K Nock; Jordan W Smoller; Ben Y Reis Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Kenneth L Cox; Matthew K Nock; Quinn M Biggs; Jennifer Bornemann; Lisa J Colpe; Catherine L Dempsey; Steven G Heeringa; James E McCarroll; Tsz Hin Ng; Michael Schoenbaum; Robert J Ursano; Bailey G Zhang; David M Benedek Journal: Suicide Life Threat Behav Date: 2016-07-22
Authors: Thomas H McCoy; Victor M Castro; Ashlee M Roberson; Leslie A Snapper; Roy H Perlis Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Rod L Walker; Susan M Shortreed; Rebecca A Ziebell; Eric Johnson; Jennifer M Boggs; Frances L Lynch; Yihe G Daida; Brian K Ahmedani; Rebecca Rossom; Karen J Coleman; Gregory E Simon Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Jennifer L Shaw; Julie A Beans; Carolyn Noonan; Julia J Smith; Mike Mosley; Kate M Lillie; Jaedon P Avey; Rebecca Ziebell; Gregory Simon Journal: Suicide Life Threat Behav Date: 2022-03-15
Authors: Elisabeth Bondesson; Tori Alpar; Ingemar F Petersson; Maria E C Schelin; Anna Jöud Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.135