Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorWatts, Devonpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCardoso, Taiane de Azevedopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorGarcia, Diego Librenzapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBallester, Pedro Lemospt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPassos, Ives Cavalcantept_BR
dc.contributor.authorKessler, Felix Henrique Paimpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorReilly, Jimpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorChaimowitz, Garypt_BR
dc.contributor.authorKapczinski, Flávio Pereirapt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-01T03:39:28Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2022pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn2158-3188pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/259725pt_BR
dc.description.abstractAlthough reducing criminal outcomes in individuals with mental illness have long been a priority for governments worldwide, there is still a lack of objective and highly accurate tools that can predict these events at an individual level. Predictive machine learning models may provide a unique opportunity to identify those at the highest risk of criminal activity and facilitate personalized rehabilitation strategies. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to describe the diagnostic accuracy of studies using machine learning techniques to predict criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatry. We performed meta-analyses using the mada, meta, and dmetatools packages in R to predict criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatric patients (n = 2428) (Registration Number: CRD42019127169) by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in any language up to April 2022. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, studies used single-nucleotide polymorphisms, text analysis, psychometric scales, hospital records, and resting-state regional cerebral blood flow to build predictive models. Of the studies described in the systematic review, nine were included in the present meta-analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting violent and criminal outcomes in psychiatry was 0.816 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 70.57–88.15), with a partial AUC of 0.773, and average sensitivity of 73.33% (95% CI: 64.09–79.63), and average specificity of 72.90% (95% CI: 63.98–79.66), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled accuracy across models was 71.45% (95% CI: 60.88–83.86), with a tau squared (τ 2 ) of 0.0424 (95% CI: 0.0184–0.1553). Based on available evidence, we suggest that prospective models include evidence-based risk factors identified in prior actuarial models. Moreover, there is a need for a greater emphasis on identifying biological features and incorporating novel variables which have not been explored in prior literature. Furthermore, available models remain preliminary, and prospective validation with independent datasets, and across cultures, will be required prior to clinical implementation. Nonetheless, predictive machine learning models hold promise in providing clinicians and researchers with actionable tools to improve how we prevent, detect, or intervene in relevant crime and violent-related outcomes in psychiatry.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofTranslational psychiatry. New York. Vol. 12 (2022), artigo 470, 11 p.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectPsiquiatriapt_BR
dc.subjectViolênciapt_BR
dc.subjectMetanálisept_BR
dc.subjectAprendizado de máquinapt_BR
dc.subjectPrognósticopt_BR
dc.titlePredicting criminal and violent outcomes in psychiatry : a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracypt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001166900pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples