ReviewThe Journal of pediatrics2023
The Ethics of Risk Prediction for Psychosis and Suicide Attempt in Youth Mental Health.
Review in The Journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Global research trends on the human exposome: a bibliometric analysis (2005-2024).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025Review
- Understanding suicidality in adolescents and young adults at clinical high risk for psychosis: a narrative review on risk factors and clinical insights.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Automatically extracting social determinants of health for suicide: a narrative literature review.Npj mental health research · 2024Review
- Classification of Suicide Attempt Risk Using Environmental and Lifestyle Factors in 3 Large Youth Cohorts.JAMA psychiatry · 2024Article
- Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify potential clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and exposomic risk scores (ERS) for psychosis and suicide attempt in youth and assess the ethical implications of these tools. STUDY
designWe conducted a narrative literature review of emerging findings on PRS and ERS for suicide and psychosis as well as a literature review on the ethics of PRS. We discuss the ethical implications of the emerging findings for the clinical potential of PRS and ERS.
resultsEmerging evidence suggests that PRS and ERS may offer clinical utility in the relatively near future but that this utility will be limited to specific, narrow clinical questions, in contrast to the suggestion that population-level screening will have sweeping impact. Combining PRS and ERS might optimize prediction. This clinical utility would change the risk-benefit balance of PRS, and further empirical assessment of proposed risks would be necessary. Some concerns for PRS, such as those about counseling, privacy, and inequities, apply to ERS. ERS raise distinct ethical challenges as well, including some that involve informed consent and direct-to-consumer advertising. Both raise questions about the ethics of machine-learning/artificial intelligence approaches.
conclusionsPredictive analytics using PRS and ERS may soon play a role in youth mental health settings. Our findings help educate clinicians about potential capabilities, limitations, and ethical implications of these tools. We suggest that a broader discussion with the public is needed to avoid overenthusiasm and determine regulations and guidelines for use of predictive scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.