Robert B Penfold1, Eric Johnson2, Susan M Shortreed2, Rebecca A Ziebell2, Frances L Lynch3, Greg N Clarke3, Karen J Coleman4, Beth E Waitzfelder5, Arne L Beck6, Rebecca C Rossom7, Brian K Ahmedani8, Gregory E Simon2. 1. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101 USA. Electronic address: robert.b.penfold@kp.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101 USA. 3. Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, OR 97227 USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, CA 91101 USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Center for Health Research, Honolulu HI 96817 USA. 6. Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, CO 80231 USA. 7. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN 55425 USA. 8. Henry Ford Health System, Center for Health Policy & Health Services Research, Detroit, MI 48202.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies report on machine learning models for suicide risk prediction in adolescents and their utility in identifying those in need of further evaluation. This study examined whether a model trained and validated using data from all age groups works as well for adolescents or whether it could be improved. METHODS: We used healthcare data for 1.4 million specialty mental health and primary care outpatient visits among 256,823 adolescents across 7 health systems. The prediction target was 90-day risk of suicide attempt following a visit. We used logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) to predict risk. We compared performance of three models: an existing model, a recalibrated version of that model, and a newly-learned model. Models were compared using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: The AUC produced by the existing model for specialty mental health visits estimated in adolescents alone (0.796; [0.789, 0.802]) was not significantly different than the AUC of the recalibrated existing model (0.794; [0.787, 0.80]) or the newly-learned model (0.795; [0.789, 0.801]). Predicted risk following primary care visits was also similar: existing (0.855; [0.844, 0.866]), recalibrated (0.85 [0.839, 0.862]), newly-learned (0.842, [0.829, 0.854]). LIMITATIONS: The models did not incorporate non-healthcare risk factors. The models relied on ICD9-CM codes for diagnoses and outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models already in operational use by health systems can be reliably employed for identifying adolescents in need of further evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Few studies report on machine learning models for suicide risk prediction in adolescents and their utility in identifying those in need of further evaluation. This study examined whether a model trained and validated using data from all age groups works as well for adolescents or whether it could be improved. METHODS: We used healthcare data for 1.4 million specialty mental health and primary care outpatient visits among 256,823 adolescents across 7 health systems. The prediction target was 90-day risk of suicide attempt following a visit. We used logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) to predict risk. We compared performance of three models: an existing model, a recalibrated version of that model, and a newly-learned model. Models were compared using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: The AUC produced by the existing model for specialty mental health visits estimated in adolescents alone (0.796; [0.789, 0.802]) was not significantly different than the AUC of the recalibrated existing model (0.794; [0.787, 0.80]) or the newly-learned model (0.795; [0.789, 0.801]). Predicted risk following primary care visits was also similar: existing (0.855; [0.844, 0.866]), recalibrated (0.85 [0.839, 0.862]), newly-learned (0.842, [0.829, 0.854]). LIMITATIONS: The models did not incorporate non-healthcare risk factors. The models relied on ICD9-CM codes for diagnoses and outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models already in operational use by health systems can be reliably employed for identifying adolescents in need of further evaluation.
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: Kelly Posner; Gregory K Brown; Barbara Stanley; David A Brent; Kseniya V Yershova; Maria A Oquendo; Glenn W Currier; Glenn A Melvin; Laurence Greenhill; Sa Shen; J John Mann Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Deborah M Stone; Thomas R Simon; Katherine A Fowler; Scott R Kegler; Keming Yuan; Kristin M Holland; Asha Z Ivey-Stephenson; Alex E Crosby Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Andrea H Kline-Simon; Stacy Sterling; Kelly Young-Wolff; Gregory Simon; Yun Lu; Monique Does; Vincent Liu Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-10-01