IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J Spittal
  • Xianglin Aneta Guo
  • Laurant Kang
  • Olivia J Kirtley
  • Angela Clapperton
  • Keith Hawton
  • Nav Kapur
  • Jane Pirkis
  • Greg Carter

Abstract

Background: There has been rapid expansion in the development of machine learning algorithms to predict suicidal behaviours. To test the accuracy of these algorithms for predicting suicide and hospital-treated self-harm, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42024523074). Methods and findings: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, IEEE, Medline, CINALH and Web of Science from database inception until 30 April 2025 to identify studies using machine learning algorithms to predict suicide, self-harm and a combined suicide/self-harm outcome. Studies were included if they examined suicide or hospital-treated self-harm outcomes using a case-control, case-cohort or cohort study design. Studies were excluded if they used self-reported outcomes or examined outcomes using other study designs. Accuracy was assessed using statistical methods appropriate for diagnostic accuracy studies. Fifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranged from 0.69 to 0.93. Sensitivity was 45%–82% and specificity was 91%–95%. Positive likelihood ratios were 6.5–9.9 and negative likelihood values were 0.2–0.6. Using in-sample prevalence values, the positive predictive values ranged from 6% to 17%. Using out-of-sample prevalence values at an LR+ value of 10, the positive predictive value was 0.1% in low prevalence populations, 17% in medium prevalence populations and 66% in high prevalence populations. The main study limitations were the exclusion of relevant studies where we could not extract sufficient information to calculate accuracy statistics and between-study differences in the follow-up time over which the outcomes were observed. Conclusions: The accuracy of machine learning algorithms for predicting suicidal behaviour is too low to be useful for screening (case finding) or for prioritising high-risk individuals for interventions (treatment allocation). For hospital-treated self-harm populations, management should instead include three components for all patients: a needs-based assessment and response, identification of modifiable risk factors with treatment intended to reduce those exposures, and implementation of demonstrated effective aftercare interventions. Author summary: Why was this study done? In a systematic review, Matthew Spittal and colleagues investigate the accuracy of machine learning algorithms to predict suicide and self-harm. They find the predictive properties of these machine learning algorithms to be poor, and no better than traditional risk assessment scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J Spittal & Xianglin Aneta Guo & Laurant Kang & Olivia J Kirtley & Angela Clapperton & Keith Hawton & Nav Kapur & Jane Pirkis & Greg Carter, 2025. "Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(9), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004581
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004581
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004581&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004581?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.