SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Can machine learning predict non-suicidal self-injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is common among adolescents and young adults and remains difficult to detect early using conventional approaches. machine learning (ML) has increasingly been applied to develop prediction models for NSSI. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that developed ML models for NSSI prediction, as defined by the original study authors. Multiple databases were searched from inception to June 28, 2025. Model performance, including the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, was synthesized using a bivariate random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST+AI. Results: Twelve studies involving 33,366 participants were included. In the primary model-level analysis, ensemble models showed relatively favorable pooled discrimination, with a pooled AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86), sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84). Single models showed lower performance (AUC: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.64-0.72). Only one study evaluated a deep learning (DL) model (AUC = 0.70), and this estimate should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Across all 19 models, the pooled AUC was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.79). Substantial heterogeneity was observed, and the apparent advantage of ensemble models was not sustained in the study-level sensitivity analysis. Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in the analysis domain. Conclusions: ML models show promise for identifying NSSI-related risk, but current evidence supporting true prospective prediction remains limited. The evidence base is constrained by substantial heterogeneity, a high risk of bias, and the predominance of cross-sectional studies. Prospective multicenter studies with external validation and standardized reporting are needed before ML-based models can be translated into clinical or public health practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251075613, identifier: CRD420251075613.
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.