The impact of machine learning in predicting risk of violence: A systematic review.

artificial intelligence clinical setting forensic setting machine learning violence assessment

Journal

Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 10 08 2022
accepted: 07 11 2022
entrez: 19 12 2022
pubmed: 20 12 2022
medline: 20 12 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Inpatient violence in clinical and forensic settings is still an ongoing challenge to organizations and practitioners. Existing risk assessment instruments show only moderate benefits in clinical practice, are time consuming, and seem to scarcely generalize across different populations. In the last years, machine learning (ML) models have been applied in the study of risk factors for aggressive episodes. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the potential of ML for identifying risk of violence in clinical and forensic populations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review on the use of ML techniques in predicting risk of violence of psychiatric patients in clinical and forensic settings was performed. A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. Risk of bias and applicability assessment was performed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We identified 182 potentially eligible studies from 2,259 records, and 8 papers were included in this systematic review. A wide variability in the experimental settings and characteristics of the enrolled samples emerged across studies, which probably represented the major cause for the absence of shared common predictors of violence found by the models learned. Nonetheless, a general trend toward a better performance of ML methods compared to structured violence risk assessment instruments in predicting risk of violent episodes emerged, with three out of eight studies with an AUC above 0.80. However, because of the varied experimental protocols, and heterogeneity in study populations, caution is needed when trying to quantitatively compare (e.g., in terms of AUC) and derive general conclusions from these approaches. Another limitation is represented by the overall quality of the included studies that suffer from objective limitations, difficult to overcome, such as the common use of retrospective data. Despite these limitations, ML models represent a promising approach in shedding light on predictive factors of violent episodes in clinical and forensic settings. Further research and more investments are required, preferably in large and prospective groups, to boost the application of ML models in clinical practice. [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022310410].

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Inpatient violence in clinical and forensic settings is still an ongoing challenge to organizations and practitioners. Existing risk assessment instruments show only moderate benefits in clinical practice, are time consuming, and seem to scarcely generalize across different populations. In the last years, machine learning (ML) models have been applied in the study of risk factors for aggressive episodes. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the potential of ML for identifying risk of violence in clinical and forensic populations.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review on the use of ML techniques in predicting risk of violence of psychiatric patients in clinical and forensic settings was performed. A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. Risk of bias and applicability assessment was performed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
Results UNASSIGNED
We identified 182 potentially eligible studies from 2,259 records, and 8 papers were included in this systematic review. A wide variability in the experimental settings and characteristics of the enrolled samples emerged across studies, which probably represented the major cause for the absence of shared common predictors of violence found by the models learned. Nonetheless, a general trend toward a better performance of ML methods compared to structured violence risk assessment instruments in predicting risk of violent episodes emerged, with three out of eight studies with an AUC above 0.80. However, because of the varied experimental protocols, and heterogeneity in study populations, caution is needed when trying to quantitatively compare (e.g., in terms of AUC) and derive general conclusions from these approaches. Another limitation is represented by the overall quality of the included studies that suffer from objective limitations, difficult to overcome, such as the common use of retrospective data.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Despite these limitations, ML models represent a promising approach in shedding light on predictive factors of violent episodes in clinical and forensic settings. Further research and more investments are required, preferably in large and prospective groups, to boost the application of ML models in clinical practice.
Systematic review registration UNASSIGNED
[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022310410].

Identifiants

pubmed: 36532168
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1015914
pmc: PMC9751313
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

1015914

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Parmigiani, Barchielli, Casale, Mancini and Ferracuti.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Law Hum Behav. 2018 Jun;42(3):181-214
pubmed: 29648841
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Dec;294:113515
pubmed: 33113452
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;33(4):369-374
pubmed: 32250986
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Oct;268:217-222
pubmed: 30064068
J Affect Disord. 2018 Dec 1;241:519-532
pubmed: 30153635
PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 14;11(10):e1001744
pubmed: 25314315
BMJ. 2020 Mar 18;368:m441
pubmed: 32188600
J Interpers Violence. 2022 Jan;37(1-2):602-622
pubmed: 32306866
J Psychiatr Res. 2021 Jun;138:146-154
pubmed: 33857785
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013 Jul;16(6):1195-204
pubmed: 23164479
J Adv Nurs. 2015 May;71(5):1110-22
pubmed: 25546118
Eur Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;52:47-53
pubmed: 29626758
Psychol Health Med. 2022 Jun;27(5):1168-1175
pubmed: 33874841
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Jul;66(7):700-12
pubmed: 19581561
BMJ. 2015 Jan 07;350:g7594
pubmed: 25569120
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0128536
pubmed: 26061796
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;170(1):W1-W33
pubmed: 30596876
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jul 3;2(7):e196709
pubmed: 31268542
Psychiatry Res. 2021 Dec;306:114294
pubmed: 34823086
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:112960
pubmed: 32361562
Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):499-513
pubmed: 21255891

Auteurs

Giovanna Parmigiani (G)

Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Benedetta Barchielli (B)

Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Simona Casale (S)

Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Toni Mancini (T)

Department of Computer Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Stefano Ferracuti (S)

Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH