ArticleJAACAP open2025
Concurrent and Prospective Prediction of Suicidal Ideation in Adolescents Using Multimethod Data and Machine Learning: A Pilot Study.
Article in JAACAP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Introduction to a Special Series on Youth Suicide.JAACAP open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Despite an increased focus on prevention, rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors have failed to decline and robust predictors have yet to be identified, highlighting a critical need to integrate multiple risk processes across methodological approaches in predictive models. Method: The current pilot study leveraged machine learning with multimethod data to predict concurrent and prospective suicidal ideation (SI) in a sample of adolescents 14 to 17 years of age (N = 165) oversampled for depression and depression risk. Predictors included clinical diagnoses and comorbidity load, interviewer-rated chronic stress, self-reported internalizing symptoms, daily experiences of positive and negative affect, and neural measures of emotion processing and reward responsiveness. The presence or absence of SI was measured at baseline using self-report and a clinician interview. SI was self-reported again at a 6-month follow-up and was reassessed via a clinician interview approximately 1 year after baseline. Random forest classification models with a synthetic minority oversampling technique were implemented and cross-validated. Results: Random forest classification outperformed logistic regression, predicting SI with high precision and recall both concurrently and prospectively (F1s = 0.81-0.85). Predictor importance analyses showed that cognitive symptoms of depression and average positive affect were prominent predictors across models. Surprisingly, chronic stress and neural measures demonstrated limited predictive utility. Conclusion: Findings from this pilot study support the potential of machine learning algorithms with multimethod data in the prediction of SI in adolescence, although replication and extension are needed. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. We worked to ensure sex and gender balance, as well as race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants. While citing references scientifically relevant for this work, we also actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our reference list. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sex and/or gender groups in science.
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.