ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Digitalized suicide risk assessment in emergency psychiatry services.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency psychiatry services represent the primary point of contact for patients with acute suicidal risk; however, traditional risk assessment remains inconsistent and vulnerable to error. Objectives: This study aims to develop a comprehensive model for the digitalized assessment of suicide risk in emergency psychiatry services by integrating validated risk factors from the specialist literature into a clinical stratification algorithm. The study seeks to create a practical instrument that enables the rapid and standardized classification of patients into risk categories - low, moderate, high, and imminent - thereby supporting clinical decisions regarding the need for hospitalization and the intensity of therapeutic intervention. Methods: We developed a 30-factor stratification algorithm that integrates the following categories of factors: psychiatric disorders, weighted at 30%; psychological factors, weighted at 20%; personal history factors, weighted at 25%; socio-demographic factors, weighted at 10%; and acute contextual factors, weighted at 15%. The algorithm was developed on the basis of a synthesis of meta-analyses published between 2017 and 2025. Results: The conceptual scoring system ranges the level of risk factors (RF) from 0 to 100 points and uses provisional operational intervals for stratification: low risk, 0 ≤ RF ≤ 25; moderate risk, 25< RF ≤ 75; high risk, 75< RF ≤ 100; and imminent risk, defined by composite alarm conditions that override the numerical score. These intervals have not yet been clinically calibrated. The digitalized system also includes protective factors, which are considered separately in the recommendations section to assess the feasibility of the safety plan and continuity of care. This study reports the original development and formal specification of a conceptual, mathematical, and algorithmic model; it does not report clinical validation or patient-level predictive performance. Conclusions: The implementation of a digitalized system for suicide risk assessment in emergency psychiatry services may support clinicians in making clinical decisions regarding the psychiatric care of patients with acute suicidal risk in the short and medium term.
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.