Cited by 209Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Developing a practical suicide risk prediction model for targeting high‐risk patients in the Veterans health Administration

Open access
Kessler, Ronald C., Hwang, Irving, Hoffmire, Claire A., McCarthy, John F., Petukhova, Maria V., Rosellini, Anthony J., Sampson, Nancy A., Schneider, Alexandra L. +4 more·2017·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Objectives: The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has begun using predictive modeling to identify Veterans at high suicide risk to target care. Initial analyses are reported here. Methods: A penalized logistic regression model was compared with an earlier proof‐of‐concept logistic model. Exploratory analyses then considered commonly‐used machine learning algorithms. Analyses were based on electronic medical records for all 6,360 individuals classified in the National Death Index as having died by suicide in fiscal years 2009–2011 who used VHA services the year of their death or prior year and a 1% probability sample of time‐matched VHA service users alive at the index date ( n = 2,112,008). Results: A penalized logistic model with 61 predictors had sensitivity comparable to the proof‐of‐concept model (which had 381 predictors) at target thresholds. The machine learning algorithms had relatively similar sensitivities, the highest being for Bayesian additive regression trees, with 10.7% of suicides occurred among the 1.0% of Veterans with highest predicted risk and 28.1% among the 5.0% of with highest predicted risk. Conclusions: Based on these results, VHA is using penalized logistic regression in initial intervention implementation. The paper concludes with a discussion of other practical issues that might be explored to increase model performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mpr.1575

Cites

37 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BERT models effectively capture the interaction between a key clinical concept and their surrounding context, and have shown superior performance in various NLP tasks including text classification.

    “In particular, the BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models effectively capture the interaction between a key clinical concept and their surrounding context, and have shown superior performance in various NLP tasks including text classification16.”

    From Deep learning for identifying personal and family history of suicidal thoughts and behaviors from EHRs (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Analysis methods (§2.3) and Results (§3.2) discuss BART—Bayesian additive regression trees—for predicting suicide risk, not BERT. Searches for BERT, transformers, clinical-context interactions, and NLP text classification found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., Hoffmire, C. A., McCarthy, J. F., Petukhova, M. V., Rosellini, A. J., Sampson, N. A., Schneider, A. L., Bradley, P. A., Katz, I. R., Thompson, C., & Bossarte, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • VA Rocky Mountain Network (US)
  • VA Center for Clinical Management Research (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers (United States) (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Kessler, Ronald C.
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-07-04
Volume
26
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0657
OpenAlex
W2725461439
Cited by
209
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 2
FWCI
19.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA118‐14‐C‐0046)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
suicide risk prediction, veterans, Veterans Health Administration, penalized logistic regression, Bayesian additive regression trees, machine learning, suicide mortality, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Suicide, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Models, Statistical, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review