Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Stochastic Compartmental Model of Suicide Risk Dynamics in U.S. Veterans

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that suicide risk in veterans is a stress-driven stochastic tipping process, where high-risk profiles persist in ideation and attempt states while protective profiles recover.

desk verdict A clearly written proof-of-concept SDE model whose headline tipping result is underdetermined by two missing parameter sets, but the framework deserves peer review with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18553 v1 pith:YC5H2HQ3 submitted 2025-08-25 q-bio.OT

Anna Singley , Carrie Manore , Hannah Highlander , Ben McMahon This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.OT MSC 60H1037N25
keywords suicideriskstochasticdifferentialequationscompartmentalmodelOrnstein-Uhlenbeckprocessveteransearlywarningsignalsareaunderthecurvephaseplaneanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Suicide risk in U.S. veterans is usually treated as a static score, but this paper tries to show it is a trajectory that can tip. It builds a five-state stochastic compartmental model—Healthy, Passive Ideation, Active Ideation, Attempt, and Removed—in which transition rates fluctuate under a mean-reverting stress process and are scaled by clinical covariates drawn from retrospective veteran health records. Simulations with risk-loaded profiles (prior attempt, high depression scores, opioid overdose, psychiatric diagnosis) produce persistent ideation and escalation to attempt, whereas protective profiles return quickly to the Healthy state. The authors read the resulting area-under-the-curve and phase-plane patterns as early-warning signatures and as support for individualized dynamical risk assessment. The model is explicitly not yet validated against longitudinal outcomes, so these are claims about a proposed framework rather than measured predictions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a five-compartment continuous-time stochastic model with states Healthy (H), Passive Ideation (P), Active Ideation (A), Attempt (T), and Removed (R), and with transition rates given by $\gamma = \gamma_{\mathrm{base}} e^{k \cdot \mathrm{Stress}} (1 + \sum_i \beta_i x_i)$. The exponential stress modulation supplies dynamic sensitivity; the covariate sum $\sum_i \beta_i x_i$ turns static odds-ratio estimates into individual rate multipliers; the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process for Stress supplies mean-reverting fluctuation; and the area-under-the-curve and phase-plane analyses convert simulated trajectories into comparisons of state occupancy and stability. This rate equation is the single point where all empirical information enters the dynamics.

What would settle it

Take a longitudinal cohort of veterans with repeated stress and mental-state measurements and estimate the actual transition rates between Healthy, Passive Ideation, Active Ideation, and Attempt; if the covariate multipliers and stress sensitivity estimated from those rates differ systematically from the odds-ratio weights used here, the model's central mechanism is contradicted. A simpler version: check whether individuals with the risk-loaded covariate set actually progress from Passive to Active to Attempt at the elevated rates the model assumes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a stochastic compartmental model of suicidal progression can reproduce clinically plausible divergence between high-risk and protected individuals. In the model, a mean-reverting stochastic stress process drives all transition rates through an exponential factor, and odds-ratio-based coefficients from a retrospective case-control study of millions of veteran records act as time-invariant multiplicative weights. Simulated risk-loaded profiles spend more time in Active Ideation and Attempt, show sharper tipping in phase planes, and approach the absorbing Removed state; protective profiles cluster around a low-risk attractor. The authors take these qualitative differences as evidence that suicide risk has bifurcation-like dynamics and that early-warning signals could be derived from individual trajectories rather than from snapshot risk scores.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that odds ratios estimated from a retrospective case-control study act as multiplicative weights on transition rates in a forward simulation; if those coefficients describe association rather than the speed of movement between mental states, the profile-dependent tipping behavior is an artifact of the assumed rate formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static risk scores misclassify individuals whose risk escalates or recovers over time; trajectory-based models would classify by time spent in high-risk states.
  • Early-warning signals such as rising time in Active Ideation or diverging phase-plane flow could be monitored in individual longitudinal data.
  • Protective factors in the model act by strengthening recovery transitions, suggesting that interventions boosting those transitions could be tested in silico before deployment.
  • Stress volatility and escalation transitions are the most influential parameters for attempt exposure, pointing clinical monitoring toward stress variability rather than mean stress alone.
  • The same covariate weights can drive different individuals into different regimes, so risk stratification would need to be profile-specific rather than population-wide.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The model leaves the stress-scaling constant $k$ unestimated, so the quantitative tipping thresholds depend on an arbitrary choice; the early-warning signatures should be treated as qualitative until $k$ is calibrated, for instance by fitting to longitudinal stress ratings.
  • Because the baseline transition rates are mostly set to 1.0, the difference between profiles in the simulations is driven almost entirely by the covariate multipliers; a run with the stress term switched off would isolate how much tipping behavior is attributable to covariates alone.
  • If the odds-ratio weights were replaced by hazard ratios estimated from time-to-event data, the model would provide a direct test of whether the association structure from retrospective records actually predicts forward transition rates.
  • The same compartmental skeleton could be applied to other psychiatric outcomes with known risk-factor profiles, such as relapse in mood disorders, to test whether bifurcation-like tipping is generic to stress-modulated mental states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a five-compartment continuous-time model of suicide risk in U.S. veterans, with states Healthy (H), Passive Ideation (P), Active Ideation (A), Attempt (T), and Removed (R). Transition rates are written as gamma = gamma_base * e^(k*Stress) * (1 + sum beta_i x_i), where Stress follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and covariates are taken from a retrospective case-control study. The authors define Protective, Mixed, and Risk-Loaded profiles, simulate trajectories, report AUC summaries per compartment, perform Latin Hypercube Sampling with PRCC sensitivity analysis, and construct phase portraits for deterministic skeletons. The central claim is that simulations reveal profile-dependent tipping behavior, with risk-loaded individuals showing persistent ideation and attempts, and that AUC and phase-plane analyses suggest early-warning signals for individualized suicide risk assessment.

Significance. If fully parameterized and carefully framed, this work could serve as a useful hypothesis-generating framework for individualized suicide risk dynamics, and the phase-plane and sensitivity methodology is a reasonable way to map covariates onto qualitative behavior. The paper is honest about the lack of longitudinal validation and about the heuristic time-scale mapping. However, as submitted, the main quantitative results are underdetermined by missing parameter values and partly follow from the way the profiles are constructed. The contribution is therefore methodological rather than empirical, and the central claims need to be reworked before the paper can be evaluated for publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Compartment Dynamics; Initial Conditions and Parameterization] The rate equation gamma = gamma_base * e^(k*Stress) * (1 + sum beta_i x_i) contains parameters that are never given values: the stress-scaling constant k is not defined in the Stress Dynamics subsection or in the parameter list, and the covariate coefficients beta_i are described only by their clinical interpretation in Table 1, with the promised numerical values absent from the Supplementary Materials. The LHS/PRCC analysis samples mu and sigma but not k, so the effect of the exponential stress scaling is never explored. Because the magnitude of e^(k*Stress) is arbitrary, the reported tipping behavior and early-warning signatures cannot be reproduced or falsified from the manuscript; this is a load-bearing omission for the central claim.
  2. [Compartment Dynamics; Table 1] The covariate term 1 + sum beta_i x_i is inconsistent with the odds-ratio origin of the coefficients unless a specific transformation is defined. If beta_i are odds ratios, a protective factor with OR < 1 would still increase the multiplier above 1 when activated, contradicting the protective assignment in Table 1; if beta_i are log-odds or negative coefficients, a value below -1 for any activated covariate makes the multiplier negative and produces a negative transition rate. The paper does not state the transformation, constraints, or any clipping step, so the rate law can be ill-posed for the parameter values it is meant to use.
  3. [Patient Profile Construction; Results] The main simulation outcome, that Risk-Loaded profiles persist in ideation and attempt while Protective profiles recover, is largely encoded in the profile definitions. The Risk-Loaded profile activates the covariates that increase gamma_HP, gamma_PA, and gamma_AT, while the Protective profile activates covariates assigned to gamma_PH. The simulations therefore demonstrate the consequences of the model's assumptions rather than reveal emergent dynamics. The abstract and Discussion should be reframed accordingly; as written, the claim that simulations 'reveal' profile-dependent tipping overstates the evidential weight of the construction.
  4. [Results; Figures 2-7] The early-warning and tipping claims are not supported by quantitative evidence. The phase portraits are computed for a deterministic skeleton at an unspecified 'fixed stress' value, with no bifurcation parameter, critical-point calculation, or early-warning statistic such as rising variance or autocorrelation. The trajectory figures are single realizations, and no replicate distributions, confidence intervals, or statistical tests accompany the AUC comparisons across profiles. These additions are necessary before the paper can claim to have identified early-warning signals.
  5. [Compartment Dynamics; Initial Conditions and Parameterization] The numerical implementation is underspecified. The compartment equations are written as deterministic ODEs for proportions, but the text describes individual probabilistic trajectories and calls the model an SDE; the only Wiener process appears in the Stress equation. It is unclear whether simulations use a discrete-event algorithm (e.g., Gillespie), Euler-Maruyama with stochastic rates, or direct ODE integration with a stochastic stress path. This ambiguity, together with the absence of random seeds and integration details, prevents reproduction of the reported trajectories.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction; References] The text cites Dhaubhadel et al. (2023), but the bibliography lists Dhaubhadel et al., Scientific Reports, 14:1793, 2024; the date should be corrected and the underlying model type should be stated precisely.
  2. [Supplementary Material] Section S2 of the Supplementary Materials is a placeholder; the numerical covariate values referenced in Table 1 do not appear anywhere in the manuscript.
  3. [Results; Sensitivity Analysis] The LHS/PRCC analysis does not specify the sampling distributions or ranges for the perturbed parameters, so the sensitivity results cannot be reproduced.
  4. [Patient Profile Construction] The Mixed profile is described as randomly sampled, but the number of instantiations and the random seed are not reported; this should be documented.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] The phase-plane figures are described as color-coded, but the captions do not mention colorbars or axis legends; please add them or indicate where they are defined.
  6. [Results; AUC] The statement that AUC is 'threshold-free' is slightly misleading because the model itself uses PHQ-9 quartile thresholds to construct covariates; rephrase to 'threshold-free at the outcome level.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Profile-dependent tipping is written into the covariate multipliers, not independently predicted.

  1. self definitional [Rate law in 'Compartment Dynamics'; Table 1; 'Patient Profile Construction']
    "The Risk-Loaded profile, by contrast, activated all major risk factors—including prior suicide attempt, current ideation, opioid use, psychiatric diagnosis, and high PHQ-9 scores—representing a clinically plausible high-risk scenario. ... Each covariate enters the model as a linear multiplier of a stress-scaled transition rate. Mathematically, each rate γ is computed as: γ = γbase·e^{k·Stress}·(1 + Σ β_i x_i)."

    The Risk-Loaded profile is defined by switching on exactly the binary x_i that Table 1 assigns as positive multipliers to γ_HP, γ_PA, and γ_AT (PHQ-9, ideation history, opioid use, psychiatric diagnosis, prior attempt, opioid overdose), while the Protective profile switches on exactly the x_i assigned to γ_PH (married, group therapy, family psychotherapy). Because each x_i multiplies the corresponding transition rate in the same direction as the profile construction, the simulated 'persistent ideation and attempt states' for Risk-Loaded and 'rapid reversion to Healthy' for Protective are direct evaluations of the rate law at that profile's x_i values.

full rationale

One definitional circularity is present in the main qualitative claim. The rate law γ = γbase·e^{k·Stress}·(1 + Σβ_i x_i) makes the covariate effects monotone multipliers of the same transitions used to define the profiles, so the observed profile-dependent tipping is a restatement of the assumed risk-factor map rather than an emergent model prediction. The paper's own caveat that the model 'has not yet been validated against longitudinal clinical outcomes' is consistent with this: the simulation outcome is an internal consistency check, not an empirical discovery. The RCC coefficients from Dhaubhadel et al. are imported from an external retrospective regression, so the first-author overlap is not by itself circular evidence; however, the specific β_i values are not tabulated in the arXiv text and the stress-scaling constant k is never assigned, which is a separate reproducibility/correctness problem rather than a circularity. The AUC and PRCC analyses provide some independent model content, but the headline 'simulations reveal' claim reduces by construction, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model's central behavior is controlled by hand-set baseline rates, hand-calibrated OU stress parameters, an undefined stress scaling k, and RCC-derived β values that are not listed in the main text. The Markov chain and adjacent-state transition structure are domain assumptions. The latent stress process is an invented construct without independent measurement. The deterministic skeleton is assumed to represent the stochastic system's qualitative features.

free parameters (12)
  • γ_base_HP = 1.0
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Healthy to Passive Ideation; no data fitting.
  • γ_base_PH = 1.0
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Passive Ideation to Healthy.
  • γ_base_PA = 1.0
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Passive to Active Ideation.
  • γ_base_AP = 1.0
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Active Ideation to Passive Ideation.
  • γ_base_AT = 0.5
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Active Ideation to Attempt, reflecting relative rarity of attempts.
  • γ_base_TA = 1.0
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for failed attempt returning to Active Ideation.
  • γ_base_TR = 0.05
    Hand-set baseline transition rate for Attempt to Removed, reflecting low probability of death in model.
  • stress_drift_mu = -0.6
    Calibrated to generate plausible stress trajectories, not estimated from data.
  • stress_volatility_sigma = 0.3
    Calibrated to generate plausible stress trajectories, not estimated from data.
  • stress_scaling_k = unspecified
    The rate equation uses e^(k*Stress) but the text never assigns a value to k.
  • RCC_beta_coefficients = not listed in main text
    Odds-ratio coefficients from Dhaubhadel et al. are applied as transition-rate multipliers; exact values are not presented.
  • simulation_window_and_step = T=10, dt=0.01
    Chosen for numerical convenience and not tied to clinical timescales.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five mental health states form a Markovian chain with bidirectional transitions between adjacent states and an absorbing Removed state.
    The compartment dynamics in the model section assume transitions only between adjacent states and no direct path from Healthy to Attempt.
  • ad hoc to paper Latent stress follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with fixed drift and volatility and modulates all transition rates exponentially.
    The equation dStress = μ Stress dt + σ dW with μ=-0.6 and σ=0.3 is used to generate plausible trajectories; no empirical stress data are used.
  • domain assumption Cross-sectional logistic regression odds ratios are valid multiplicative weights for continuous-time transition rates.
    Covariates enter as 1 + sum β_i x_i in the transition rate equation, assuming odds ratios approximate rate multipliers, which is untested.
  • domain assumption The deterministic skeleton of the SDE, obtained by fixing stress and covariates, captures the stochastic system's qualitative dynamics.
    Phase portraits are computed from expected rate equations; no formal reduction theorem is stated.
invented entities (2)
  • Latent Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stress process
    purpose: Drives time-varying transition rates via exponential stress scaling.
    No direct measurement of the stress variable is used; it is a model construct with hand-calibrated drift and volatility.
  • Five mental health compartments (H, P, A, T, R)
    purpose: Categorize mental health status for simulation and AUC computation.
    These are operational abstractions, not directly observed states, and there is no validation against longitudinal clinical data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Stochastic Compartmental Model of Suicide Risk Dynamics in U.S. Veterans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YC5H2HQ3

@misc{pith2026250818553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Stochastic Compartmental Model of Suicide Risk Dynamics in U.S. Veterans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YC5H2HQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18553}
}
read the original abstract

We present a stochastic differential equation model of suicidal progression in U.S. veterans, simulating transitions across mental health states under dynamic stress and covariate influence. Transition rates are modulated by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stress process and clinical features derived from retrospective case-control data. Simulations reveal profile-dependent tipping behavior, with risk-loaded individuals exhibiting persistent ideation and attempt states. Area-under-the-curve and phase plane analyses suggest early warning signals and support the use of individualized dynamical models for suicide risk assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18553 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Compartmental model of suicidal state transitions. Transitions occur bidirectionally between adjacent states, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase plane dynamics under the Risk-Loaded profile. (Left) Passive vs. Active, (Center) Passive vs. Attempt, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase plane dynamics under the Protective profile. (Left) Passive vs. Active, (Center) Passive vs. Attempt, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated outcomes for a protective patient profile with low PHQ-9 severity, no prior ideation or attempts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flow diagram of the model pipeline. Stress evolves stochastically and modulates all transition rates via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated trajectories for a patient with both risk and protective factors. This model run demonstrated a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated mental state trajectories for a high-risk patient profile, characterized by prior attempts, high PHQ-9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PRCC for the Healthy compartment across Mixed and Risk-Loaded profiles (n = 500 LHS samples) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PRCC for the Passive Ideation compartment across profiles. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PRCC for the Active Ideation compartment across profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PRCC for the Attempt compartment across profiles. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: PRCC for the Removed compartment across profiles. Declarations 4.1 Code Availability Code available upon request to the corresponding author. 4.2 Author contribution A.S developed the model, implemented all simulations, performed the analyses, and wrote the manuscript…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Pen to Palette: Mathematical Analysis of van Gogh's Psychological Trajectory

    physics.soc-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Van Gogh’s letters and paintings show a weak death-sentiment–fractal correlation and coordinated variance rises before the 1888 ear incident, interpreted as critical slowing down.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Survival models based on the ornstein-uhlenbeck process

    Odd O Aalen and Håkon K Gjessing. Survival models based on the ornstein-uhlenbeck process. Lifetime data analysis, 10:407–423, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    An introduction to stochastic epidemic models

    Linda JS Allen. An introduction to stochastic epidemic models. In Mathematical epidemiology, pages 81–130. Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Area under the curve- derived measures characterizing longitudinal patient responses for given thresholds

    Andreas Allgoewer, Manuel Schmid, Peter Radermacher, Pierre Asfar, and Benjamin Mayer. Area under the curve- derived measures characterizing longitudinal patient responses for given thresholds. Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health, 15(4), 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Differential Equation Models for Understanding Phenomena beyond Experimental Capabili- ties

    Wendy K Caldwell. Differential Equation Models for Understanding Phenomena beyond Experimental Capabili- ties. Arizona State University, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Deep roc analysis and auc as balanced average accuracy, for improved classifier selection, audit and explanation

    André M Carrington, Douglas G Manuel, Paul W Fieguth, Tim Ramsay, Venet Osmani, Bernhard Wernly, Carol Bennett, Steven Hawken, Olivia Magwood, Yusuf Sheikh, et al. Deep roc analysis and auc as balanced average accuracy, for improved classifier selection, audit and explanation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(1):329–341, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    High dimensional predictions of suicide risk in 4.2 million us veterans using ensemble transfer learning

    Sayera Dhaubhadel, Kumkum Ganguly, Ruy M Ribeiro, Judith D Cohn, James M Hyman, Nicolas W Hengartner, Beauty Kolade, Anna Singley, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Patrick Finley, et al. High dimensional predictions of suicide risk in 4.2 million us veterans using ensemble transfer learning. Scientific reports, 14(1):1793, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Wisqars fatal injury reports, national, regional and state, 2021, 2022

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Wisqars fatal injury reports, national, regional and state, 2021, 2022. Available from:https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. 13 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 27, 2025

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Franklin, Jessica D

    Joseph C. Franklin, Jessica D. Ribeiro, Kathryn R. Fox, Kate H. Bentley, Evan M. Kleiman, Xuemei Huang, Kathleen M. Musacchio, Adam C. Jaroszewski, Benjamin P. Chang, and Matthew K. Nock. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2):187–232, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Latin hypercube sampling and partial rank correlation coefficient analysis applied to an optimal control problem

    Boloye Gomero. Latin hypercube sampling and partial rank correlation coefficient analysis applied to an optimal control problem. Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Thomas E. Joiner. Why People Die by Suicide. Harvard University Press, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Time-dependent roc curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications

    Adina Najwa Kamarudin, Trevor Cox, and Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona. Time-dependent roc curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications. BMC medical research methodology, 17:1–19, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Dynamic behaviors of a modified sir model in epidemic diseases using nonlinear incidence and recovery rates

    Gui-Hua Li and Yong-Xin Zhang. Dynamic behaviors of a modified sir model in epidemic diseases using nonlinear incidence and recovery rates. PLoS One, 12(4):e0175789, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Ornstein–uhlenbeck processes and extensions

    Ross A Maller, Gernot Müller, and Alex Szimayer. Ornstein–uhlenbeck processes and extensions. Handbook of financial time series, pages 421–437, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    McCarthy, Robert M

    John F. McCarthy, Robert M. Bossarte, Ira R. Katz, Carl Thompson, Janet Kemp, C. Matthew Hannemann, Chad Nielson, and Michael Schoenbaum. Predictive modeling and concentration of risk: Identifying u.s. veterans at high risk for suicide. American Journal of Public Health, 105(S...

    2015

  7. [15]

    Nock, Guilherme Borges, Evelyn J

    Matthew K. Nock, Guilherme Borges, Evelyn J. Bromet, Christine B. Cha, Ronald C. Kessler, and Sing Lee. Suicide and suicidal behavior. Epidemiologic Reviews, 30(1):133–154, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Department of Veterans Affairs

    U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 2022 national veteran suicide prevention annual report, 2022. Available from: https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov

    2022

  9. [17]

    David Rudd

    M. David Rudd. The suicidal mode: A cognitive-behavioral model of suicidality. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(3):294–307, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Non-parametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: a comparison of selected techniques

    Andrea Saltelli and J Marivoet. Non-parametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: a comparison of selected techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 28(2):229–253, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    Case-control studies: advantages and disadvantages

    Philip Sedgwick. Case-control studies: advantages and disadvantages. Bmj, 348, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Simon, Bentson J.H

    Gregory E. Simon, Bentson J.H. Yarborough, Rebecca C. Rossom, Frances L. Lynch, Chun-Chung Lu, and Beth E. Waitzfelder. Predicting suicide attempts and suicide deaths with electronic health record data: A retrospective cohort study. Psychiatric Services, 72(6):568–574, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    On the theory of the brownian motion

    George E Uhlenbeck and Leonard S Ornstein. On the theory of the brownian motion. Physical review, 36(5):823, 1930

    1930

  14. [22]

    Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset and termination of depression

    Ingrid A van de Leemput, Marieke Wichers, Angélique OJ Cramer, Denny Borsboom, Francis Tuerlinckx, Peter Kuppens, Egbert H Van Nes, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Erik J Giltay, Steven H Aggen, et al. Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset and termination of depression. P...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.