Death by suicide demonstrates profound personal suffering and societal failure. While basic sciences provide the opportunity to understand biological markers related to suicide, computer science provides opportunities to understand suicide thought markers. In this novel prospective, multimodal, multicenter, mixed demographic study, we used machine learning to measure and fuse two classes of suicidal thought markers: verbal and nonverbal. Machine learning algorithms were used with the subjects' words and vocal characteristics to classify 379 subjects recruited from two academic medical centers and a rural community hospital into one of three groups: suicidal, mentally ill but not suicidal, or controls. By combining linguistic and acoustic characteristics, subjects could be classified into one of the three groups with up to 85% accuracy. The results provide insight into how advanced technology can be used for suicide assessment and prevention.
Background: As adolescent suicide rates continue to rise, innovation in risk identification is warranted. Machine learning can identify suicidal individuals based on their language samples. This feasibility pilot was conducted to explore this technology’s use in adolescent therapy sessions and assess machine learning model performance. Method: Natural language processing machine learning models to identify level of suicide risk using a smartphone app were tested in outpatient therapy sessions. Data collection included language samples, depression and suicidality standardized scale scores, and therapist impression of the client’s mental state. Previously developed models were used to predict suicidal risk. Results: 267 interviews were collected from 60 students in eight schools by ten therapists, with 29 students indicating suicide or self-harm risk. During external validation, models were trained on suicidal speech samples collected from two separate studies. We found that support vector machines (AUC: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69–0.81) and logistic regression (AUC: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.70–0.82) lead to good discriminative ability, with an extreme gradient boosting model performing the best (AUC: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.72–0.84). Conclusion: Voice collection technology and associated procedures can be integrated into mental health therapists’ workflow. Collected language samples could be classified with good discrimination using machine learning methods.
BackgroundEmergency departments (ED) are an important intercept point for identifying suicide risk and connecting patients to care, however, more innovative, person-centered screening tools are needed. Natural language processing (NLP) -based machine learning (ML) techniques have shown promise to assess suicide risk, although whether NLP models perform well in differing geographic regions, at different time periods, or after large-scale events such as the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of an NLP/ML suicide risk prediction model on newly collected language from the Southeastern United States using models previously tested on language collected in the Midwestern US.Method37 Suicidal and 33 non-suicidal patients from two EDs were interviewed to test a previously developed suicide risk prediction NLP/ML model. Model performance was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Brier scores.ResultsNLP/ML models performed with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71–0.91) and Brier score of 0.23.ConclusionThe language-based suicide risk model performed with good discrimination when identifying the language of suicidal patients from a different part of the US and at a later time period than when the model was originally developed and trained.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.