Background There has been rapid expansion in the development of machine learning algorithms to predict suicidal behaviours. To test the accuracy of these algorithms for predicting suicide and hospital-treated self-harm, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42024523074). Methods and findings We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, IEEE, Medline, CINALH and Web of Science from database inception until 30 April 2025 to identify studies using machine learning algorithms to predict suicide, self-harm and a combined suicide/self-harm outcome. Studies were included if they examined suicide or hospital-treated self-harm outcomes using a case-control, case-cohort or cohort study design. Studies were excluded if they used self-reported outcomes or examined outcomes using other study designs. Accuracy was assessed using statistical methods appropriate for diagnostic accuracy studies. Fifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranged from 0.69 to 0.93. Sensitivity was 45%–82% and specificity was 91%–95%. Positive likelihood ratios were 6.5–9.9 and negative likelihood values were 0.2–0.6. Using in-sample prevalence values, the positive predictive values ranged from 6% to 17%. Using out-of-sample prevalence values at an LR+ value of 10, the positive predictive value was 0.1% in low prevalence populations, 17% in medium prevalence populations and 66% in high prevalence populations. The main study limitations were the exclusion of relevant studies where we could not extract sufficient information to calculate accuracy statistics and between-study differences in the follow-up time over which the outcomes were observed. Conclusions The accuracy of machine learning algorithms for predicting suicidal behaviour is too low to be useful for screening (case finding) or for prioritising high-risk individuals for interventions (treatment allocation). For hospital-treated self-harm populations, management should instead include three components for all patients: a needs-based assessment and response, identification of modifiable risk factors with treatment intended to reduce those exposures, and implementation of demonstrated effective aftercare interventions.
Spittal et al. (Thu,) studied this question.