Cited by 15Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Fuzzy logic detection of medically serious suicide attempt records in major psychiatric disorders

Modai, Ilan, Kuperman, Julia, Goldberg, Imri, Goldish, Michael, Mendel, Shalom·2004·The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Abstract

Clinical prediction of suicide is a complicated task. The focus for improved suicide risk detection is on the subgroup of individuals whose high suicide risk remains unrecognized by clinicians. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of Fuzzy Adaptive Learning Control Network (FALCON) neural networks, a nonlinear algorithm, in identification of this subgroup. The study sample included the Computerized Scale for risk of Suicide, including 21 suicide risk factors (including the target variable) drawn from 987 patient records, completed by staff clinicians during face-to-face interviews of hospitalized patients. FALCON evaluated all records in two steps: a) 612 for training and 375 for validation, and b) 887 for training and 100 for validation. The existence of previous medically serious suicide attempts (MSSAs) was chosen as the target variable because it is generally recognized as the strongest suicide risk factor. Sensitivity, specificity, and unknown answers among MSSA and non-MSSA were as follows: 612/375 FALCON, 91%, 85%, 11%, 15%; 887/100 FALCON, 94%, 82%, 20%, 14.5%, respectively. Trained FALCON, a nonlinear neural network, achieves respectable accuracy in detecting MSSA patients based on 20 suicide risk factors. Trained FALCON may therefore assist in identification of subgroup of individuals who remain unrecognized by clinicians and contribute to prevention of suicide.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.nmd.0000142020.20038.dd

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Modai, I., Kuperman, J., Goldberg, I., Goldish, M., & Mendel, S.
Affiliations
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Sha'ar Menashe Mental Health Center (IL)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
  • Modai, Ilan
  • Kuperman, Julia
Venue
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Published
2004-10
Volume
192
Issue
10
Pages
708-710
ISSN
0022-3018 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015376816
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
suicide risk identification, nonlinear neural networks, suicide risk factors, psychiatric inpatients, suicide prevention
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Centers, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Hospital Records, Humans, Israel, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Neural Networks, Computer, Fuzzy Logic, Nonlinear Dynamics

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