Suicide Risk Assessment with Multi-level Dual-Context Language and
Abstract
Mental health predictive systems typically model language as if from a single context (e.g. Twitter posts, status updates, or forum posts) and often limited to a single level of analysis (e.g. either the message-level or user-level). Here, we bring these pieces together to explore the use of open-vocabulary (BERT embeddings, topics) and theoretical features (emotional expression lexica, personality) for the task of suicide risk assessment on support forums (the CLPsych-2019 Shared Task). We used dual context based approaches (modeling content from suicide forums separate from other content), built over both traditional ML models as well as a novel dual RNN architecture with user-factor adaptation. We find that while affect from the suicide context distinguishes with no-risk from those with “any-risk”, personality factors from the non-suicide contexts provide distinction of the levels of risk: low, medium, and high risk. Within the shared task, our dual-context approach (listed as SBU-HLAB in the official results) achieved state-of-the-art performance predicting suicide risk using a combination of suicide-context and non-suicide posts (Task B), achieving an F1 score of 0.50 over hidden test set labels.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The AI-based models have been validated against standard questionnaire-based measures as well as convergent factors and external criteria under a range of situations.
“They have been validated against standard questionnaire-based measures as well as convergent factors and external criteria under a range of situations (Kern et al., 2016; Matero et al., 2019; Park et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2014).”
From World Trade Center responders in their own words: predicting PTSD symptom trajectories with AI-based language analyses of interviews (2023) · cites this paper as Matero et al., 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 102
- Authors
- Matero, M., Idnani, A., Son, Y., Giorgi, S., Vu, H., Zamani, M., Limbachiya, P., Guntuku, S. C., & Schwartz, H. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 39-44
- OpenAlex
- W2963777125
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 20.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology (CLPsych) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- suicide risk assessment, BERT embeddings, topic modeling, personality traits, mental health prediction, online text analysis
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