ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Multiverse analysis of machine learning: classification between groups defined by suicidal ideation screening status using acoustic features in college students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Suicide is a major global public health crisis and a leading cause of unnatural death among college students. Current suicide ideation assessment mainly relies on self-report questionnaires and structured interviews. These methods are vulnerable to response bias and cannot support continuous monitoring. There is an urgent need for objective and non-invasive correlates of suicide ideation. Speech provides a promising source of such correlates, as acoustic features reflect emotional and cognitive states related to suicidal ideation. Although speech-based machine learning models have shown encouraging predictive performance, most studies rely on single analytical pipelines. Consequently, the robustness and generalizability of reported acoustic correlates across analytical choices remain a question for clinical translation. Methods: A comprehensive multiverse analysis was conducted across 1,764 distinct analytical pipelines using speech data from 96 Chinese university students (48 individuals who screened positive for suicidal ideation on the SIOSS and C-SSRS, and 48 matched controls who screened negative). The pipelines varied in preprocessing strategies, acoustic feature sets, dimensionality reduction methods, and machine learning models. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Feature importance was aggregated across all pipelines to identify the top 10 core acoustic features. These features were subsequently examined within a new multiverse analysis framework to assess their robustness across analytical specifications. Results: Predictive performance was highly sensitive to analytical choices, with AUC values ranging from near chance (0.508) to high discriminative accuracy (0.856). Despite this variability, a core subset of acoustic features-including fundamental frequency (F0), F0 envelope, and Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs)-demonstrated robust and stable differences between the group screening positive for suicidal ideation and the screening-negative control group. These features remained statistically significant in 237 of 240 eligible specifications (98.8%). Conclusion: Although speech-based computational prediction of group status defined by suicidal ideation screening measures is highly dependent on analytical decisions, the discriminative acoustic features derived from machine learning remain remarkably stable, while it is important to recognize that observed acoustic differences likely reflect a combination of suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, and general distress rather than a single underlying construct.
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.