21–30 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people buy guns when they aren't suicidal. Tip: If you own a gun and are feeling suicidal, give it to a trusted person for safekeeping.
It can't hurt to get rid of the gun if you're suicidal. But would it actually make a difference? Suicide rates across countries aren't related to gun availability.
Will it be that 10% of people are suicidal and it always predicts non-suicidal? Will it be that accuracy actually means AUC? Will it be that they are reporting predictive skill on the training data?
IANAStatistician, but this seems like a trash result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people buy guns when they aren't suicidal. Tip: If you own a gun and are feeling suicidal, give it to a trusted person for safekeeping.
It can't hurt to get rid of the gun if you're suicidal. But would it actually make a difference? Suicide rates across countries aren't related to gun availability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people buy guns when they aren't suicidal. Tip: If you own a gun and are feeling suicidal, give it to a trusted person for safekeeping.
It can't hurt to get rid of the gun if you're suicidal. But would it actually make a difference? Suicide rates across countries aren't related to gun availability.
So what will they do after they detect you are suicidal? Stick you in a psych ward? Yet more attempts at taking away the rights of those going through trauma.
Diagnosis tools could mean faster access to treatment. Currently in the UK the waiting list for access to mental health treatment is on the range of two to three years. Transforming "suicidal ideation" from a "vague human-given diagnosis" to "tool-given diagnosis" makes it politically easier to push for that.
In any case, that's not going to happen based off a single study with 91% accuracy.
Will it be that 10% of people are suicidal and it always predicts non-suicidal? Will it be that accuracy actually means AUC? Will it be that they are reporting predictive skill on the training data?
It's training data. There's 17 suicidal and 17 non-suicidal scans, for a total of 34 scans. They trained 34 models, leaving one scan out each time. Of those 34 models, 31 correctly predicted the left-out scan. IANAStatistician, but this seems like a trash result.
"This study used machine-learning algorithms (Gaussian Naive Bayes) to identify such individuals (17 suicidal ideators versus 17 controls) with high (91%) accuracy, based on their altered functional magnetic resonance imaging neural signatures of death-related and life-related concepts." Anyone with a Nature subscription want to check whether they simply trained their discriminator and then used it on the same data s…
17 subjects per group is extremely small. Looking at it either from a machine learning or statistical point of view, using such a small sample is problematic. This is the chronic issue with fMRI studies, since administering an fMRI is extremely expensive, and has led to some very difficult to reproduce results in the field.
Maybe they should use this test before gun purchases... I don't think someone suicidal should purchase a gun...hell I don't care if they kill themselves, but lately a lot of suicides were mass suicides...we don't need more of that shit.
> Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.