ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Predicting inmate suicidal behavior with an interpretable ensemble machine learning approach in smart prisons.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- IoTMindCare: An Integrative Reference Architecture for Safe and Personalized IoT-Based Depression Management.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Integrating multiple feature assessment methods to identify key predictors of repeat suicide attempts in Taiwan.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The convergence of smart technologies and predictive modelling in prisons presents an exciting opportunity to revolutionize the monitoring of inmate behaviour, allowing for the early detection of signs of distress and the effective mitigation of suicide risks. While machine learning algorithms have been extensively employed in predicting suicidal behaviour, a critical aspect that has often been overlooked is the interoperability of these models. Most of the work done on model interpretations for suicide predictions often limits itself to feature reduction and highlighting important contributing features only. To address this research gap, we used Anchor explanations for creating human-readable statements based on simple rules, which, to our knowledge, have never been used before for suicide prediction models. We also overcome the limitation of anchor explanations, which create weak rules on high-dimensionality datasets, by first reducing data features with the help of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). We further reduce data features through anchor interpretations for the final ensemble model of XGBoost and random forest. Our results indicate significant improvement when compared with state-of-the-art models, having an accuracy and precision of 98.6% and 98.9%, respectively. The F1-score for the best suicide ideation model appeared to be 96.7%.
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.