Subscribe to RSS
Evaluation of Electronic Health Record-Based Suicide Risk Prediction Models on Contemporary DataFunding This work was supported by cooperative agreements U19 MH092201 and U19 MH121738 with the National Institute of Mental Health.
Background Suicide risk prediction models have been developed by using information from patients' electronic health records (EHR), but the time elapsed between model development and health system implementation is often substantial. Temporal changes in health systems and EHR coding practices necessitate the evaluation of such models in more contemporary data.
Objectives A set of published suicide risk prediction models developed by using EHR data from 2009 to 2015 across seven health systems reported c-statistics of 0.85 for suicide attempt and 0.83 to 0.86 for suicide death. Our objective was to evaluate these models' performance with contemporary data (2014–2017) from these systems.
Methods We evaluated performance using mental health visits (6,832,439 to mental health specialty providers and 3,987,078 to general medical providers) from 2014 to 2017 made by 1,799,765 patients aged 13+ across the health systems. No visits in our evaluation were used in the previous model development. Outcomes were suicide attempt (health system records) and suicide death (state death certificates) within 90 days following a visit. We assessed calibration and computed c-statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and cut-point specific estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive value.
Results Models were well calibrated; 46% of suicide attempts and 35% of suicide deaths in the mental health specialty sample were preceded by a visit (within 90 days) with a risk score in the top 5%. In the general medical sample, 53% of attempts and 35% of deaths were preceded by such a visit. Among these two samples, respectively, c-statistics were 0.862 (95% CI: 0.860–0.864) and 0.864 (95% CI: 0.860–0.869) for suicide attempt, and 0.806 (95% CI: 0.790–0.822) and 0.804 (95% CI: 0.782–0.829) for suicide death.
Conclusion Performance of the risk prediction models in this contemporary sample was similar to historical estimates for suicide attempt but modestly lower for suicide death. These published models can inform clinical practice and patient care today.
Protection of Human and Subjects Protections
This research study was performed in compliance with the responsible institutional review boards for each health system that approved use of de-identified records data for the study.
Received: 16 February 2021
Accepted: 01 July 2021
18 August 2021 (online)
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Simon GE, Coleman KJ, Rossom RC. et al. Risk of suicide attempt and suicide death following completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire depression module in community practice. J Clin Psychiatry 2016; 77 (02) 221-227
- 2 Barak-Corren Y, Castro VM, Javitt S. et al. Predicting suicidal behavior from longitudinal electronic health records. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174 (02) 154-162
- 3 Choi SB, Lee W, Yoon JH, Won JU, Kim DW. Ten-year prediction of suicide death using Cox regression and machine learning in a nationwide retrospective cohort study in South Korea. J Affect Disord 2018; 231: 8-14
- 4 Kessler RC, Hwang I, Hoffmire CA. et al. Developing a practical suicide risk prediction model for targeting high-risk patients in the Veterans health Administration. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2017; 26 (03) e1575
- 5 Simon GE, Johnson E, Lawrence JM. et al. Predicting suicide attempts and suicide deaths following outpatient visits using electronic health records. Am J Psychiatry 2018; 175 (10) 951-960
- 6 Walsh CG, Ribeiro JD, Franklin JC. Predicting risk of suicide attempts over time through machine learning. Clin Psychol Sci 2017; 5 (03) 457-469
- 7 Agniel D, Kohane IS, Weber GM. Biases in electronic health record data due to processes within the healthcare system: retrospective observational study. BMJ 2018; 361: k1479
- 8 Andreu-Perez J, Poon CC, Merrifield RD, Wong ST, Yang GZ. Big data for health. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2015; 19 (04) 1193-1208
- 9 Pérez-Benito FJ, Sáez C, Conejero JA, Tortajada S, Valdivieso B, García-Gómez JM. Temporal variability analysis reveals biases in electronic health records due to hospital process reengineering interventions over seven years. PLoS One 2019; 14 (08) e0220369
- 10 Rockenschaub P, Nguyen V, Aldridge RW, Acosta D, García-Gómez JM, Sáez C. Data-driven discovery of changes in clinical code usage over time: a case-study on changes in cardiovascular disease recording in two English electronic health records databases (2001-2015). BMJ Open 2020; 10 (02) e034396
- 11 Rossom RC, Simon GE, Beck A. et al. Facilitating action for suicide prevention by learning health care systems. Psychiatr Serv 2016; 67 (08) 830-832
- 12 Ross TR, Ng D, Brown JS. et al. The HMO research network virtual data warehouse: a public data model to support collaboration. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2014; 2 (01) 1049
- 13 Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (11) 1245-1251
- 14 Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1996; 58 (01) 267-288
- 15 Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986; 42 (01) 121-130
- 16 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: 2019
- 17 Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005; 21 (20) 3940-3941
- 18 Lenert MC, Matheny ME, Walsh CG. Prognostic models will be victims of their own success, unless…. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (12) 1645-1650
- 19 Toll DB, Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y, Moons KG. Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (11) 1085-1094
- 20 Davis SE, Lasko TA, Chen G, Siew ED, Matheny ME. Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (06) 1052-1061
- 21 Simon GE, Shortreed SM, Johnson E. et al. What health records data are required for accurate prediction of suicidal behavior?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (12) 1458-1465
- 22 Ghassemi M, Naumann T, Schulam P, Beam AL, Chen IY, Ranganath R. A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2020; 2020: 191-200
- 23 Su C, Xu Z, Pathak J, Wang F. Deep learning in mental health outcome research: a scoping review. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10 (01) 116
- 24 Goldstein BA, Navar AM, Pencina MJ, Ioannidis JP. Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (01) 198-208
- 25 Van Calster B, Wynants L, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW, Collins GS. Predictive analytics in health care: how can we know it works?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (12) 1651-1654