4.5 Article

Can biological tests assist prediction of suicide in mood disorders?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1461145705005687

关键词

CSF5-HIAA; HPA axis; prediction; suicide

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 62184, MH 48514] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predicting suicide is difficult due to its low base-rate and the limited specificity of clinical predictors. Prospective biological studies suggest that dysfunctions in the serotonergic system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis have some predictive power for completed suicide in mood disorders. A prediction model that incorporates biological testing to increase specificity and sensitivity of prediction of suicide is of potential clinical value. Meta-analyses of prospective biological studies of suicide and cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (CSF 5-HIAA) and suicide and the dexamethasone suppression test (DST) in mood disorders using the penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) and bootstrap method yield odds ratios for prediction of suicide of 4.48 and 4.65 respectively. Two combinatory prediction models, the first requiring positive results on more than one test, and the second requiring a positive result on either one of two tests, were tested to assess their sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power using biological data from published and unpublished studies. The prediction model that requires both DST and CSF 5-HIAA tests to be positive results in 37.5% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and has a positive predictive value of 23%. The prediction model that requires either DST or CSF 5-HIAA tests to be positive results in 87.5% sensitivity, 28% specificity, and has a positive predictive value of 10%. Thus, models attempting to predict a lethal outcome that is uncommon perform very differently making model choice of major importance. Further work on refining biological predictors and integration with clinical predictors is needed to optimize a model to predict suicide in the clinic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据