Cited by 229Machine Learning in HealthcareMental Health via WritingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Machine learning model to predict mental health crises from electronic health records

Open access
Garriga, Roger, Mas, Javier, Abraha, Semhar, Nolan, Jon, Harrison, Oliver, Tadros, George, Matic, Aleksandar·2022·Nature Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The timely identification of patients who are at risk of a mental health crisis can lead to improved outcomes and to the mitigation of burdens and costs. However, the high prevalence of mental health problems means that the manual review of complex patient records to make proactive care decisions is not feasible in practice. Therefore, we developed a machine learning model that uses electronic health records to continuously monitor patients for risk of a mental health crisis over a period of 28 days. The model achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.797 and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.159, predicting crises with a sensitivity of 58% at a specificity of 85%. A follow-up 6-month prospective study evaluated our algorithm's use in clinical practice and observed predictions to be clinically valuable in terms of either managing caseloads or mitigating the risk of crisis in 64% of cases. To our knowledge, this study is the first to continuously predict the risk of a wide range of mental health crises and to explore the added value of such predictions in clinical practice.

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 · 10.1038/s41591-022-01811-5

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Evaluative studies in applied settings are limited and primarily focus on predicting outcomes in care, not on improving provider-client fit from the start of care.

    “Although predictive models show promise for improving healthcare access and quality,23 evaluative studies in applied settings are limited and primarily focus on predicting outcomes in care, not on improving provider-client fit from the start of care.24-26”

    From Using Machine Learning to Match Clients and Therapy Providers: Evaluating Clinical Quality and Cost of Care (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Methods (Study design and setting and Clinical evaluation; page numbers not provided) describe an evaluation in routine care of a model predicting crises among patients already on clinical teams’ caseloads. This supports the paper as an example of outcome prediction during care rather than provider–client matching at the start of care. It does not establish that applied evaluations are limited or that they primarily have this focus. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [35]Nielsen, D. Tree Boosting with XGBoost: Why Does XGBoost Win ‘Every’ Machine Learning Competition? Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2016).
  2. [52]Bergstra, J., Yamins, D. & Cox, D. Making a science of model search: hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In: Dasgupta, S. & McAllester, D. (eds) Proc. 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, 115–123 (PMLR, 2013).
  3. [53]Bergstra, J. S., Bardenet, R., Bengio, Y. & Kégl, B. Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. In: Shawe-Taylor, J., Zemel, R. S., Bartlett, P. L., Pereira, F. & Weinberger, K. Q. (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems24, 2546–2554 (Curran Associates, 2011).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garriga, R., Mas, J., Abraha, S., Nolan, J., Harrison, O., Tadros, G., & Matic, A.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
  • Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Garriga, Roger
  • Matic, Aleksandar
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2022-05-16
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1240-1248
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W4280536523
Cited by
229
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 4
FWCI
14.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Health Foundation (709246)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
electronic health records, risk prediction, clinical decision support, continuous patient monitoring, clinical utility, mental health services
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Mental Health, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Electronic Health Records

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