Assessing suicide risk from social media text is a small-data, high-stakes setting requiring not only severity prediction but also supporting evidence and clinically relevant risk and protective factors. Yet common NLP techniques, including model scaling, synthetic data, loss reweighting, ensembling, and threshold tuning, are often applied without testing whether their gains hold up under severe class imbalance, coupled outputs, and limited author-level data. We study 1,635 clinician-annotated posts and audit 31 pre-specified techniques from 7 methodological families through roughly 300 controlled experiments on author-disjoint partitions. We found no prior audit of this playbook in this regime. The findings guide a task-grounded system for three outputs: 4-level suicide risk, evidence spans, and 24 clinical risk and protective factors. Only 5 of 31 comparisons produced reliable gains. We reformulate factor prediction as entailment between each post and its codebook definitions, using an architecturally diverse ensemble with class-balanced training and score rescaling. Risk predictions condition a 7-model evidence tagger ensemble; evidence restricts symbolic risk rules; and a difficult risk class is routed separately. The factor predictor remains independent because risk evidence provides no additional factor signal. We also correct a mismatch between validation scores used for threshold fitting and test-time ensemble scores through deployment-consistent calibration, yielding the largest improvement to the factor system. The final system achieves 0.8203 for risk, 0.7953 for evidence, and 0.7045 macro-F1 for factors, with a 0.7781 composite, ranking third among 53 teams. We call the underlying principle task-conditioned technique selection: retain techniques only when task-specific knowledge, structure, or empirical evidence justifies them.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and social media data have led to growing optimism about the ability to detect suicide risk at scale. However, the empirical foundations of this work remain unclear. This article provides a synthesis of current research on AI-based suicide detection in social media, drawing on a recent umbrella review of 22 systematic reviews covering studies up to 2022, alongside an ongoing literature review extending the analysis to more recent work. Across these sources, we identified 195 relevant studies, which are documented in a detailed supplementary dataset outlining their key characteristics and findings (see Supplementary Information). Analysis of these studies reveals consistent patterns, including rapid growth, concentration on a small number of platforms, reliance on textual and English-language data, and repeated use of similar datasets. Most importantly, the majority of studies rely on indirect labeling strategies that do not involve direct, individual-level validation of suicide risk. Instead, ground truth is typically inferred from observable features of online content, such as linguistic markers or community membership. As a result, the predictive task often shifts from identifying individuals at risk to classifying posts that contain suicidal or distress-related language, limiting the ability of current approaches to detect individuals who do not express such content explicitly online. These findings suggest that current advances in model performance should be interpreted with caution. Progress in this field is likely to depend less on improving model performance and more on ensuring that model predictions meaningfully correspond to suicide risk as it is experienced in real life.
The suicide is a terrifying act of a person who is misled by his own mental state. This problem arises across many countries. Sadly, Russia also has quite high number of persons who committed suicide. Luckily, a subset of these people writes their struggles in social media, allowing a way to find them and help. However, these valuable texts disappearing in many irrelevant texts which is considerably slowing down the decision process about person's suicidal risk. To tackle this problem, in this work we have presented a detailed methodology of building the dataset for detecting texts that describe presuicidal and anti-suicidal signals. This methodology describes the process of instruction and class table creation, the process of annotation, verification and post-annotation correction. Guiding by this methodology, we collect and annotate a large-scale Russian dataset with more than 50 thousand texts from social media. We provide a count statistic of the dataset as well as common problems in annotation. We also conduct basic experiments of building the classification models to show the on go performance on different levels of annotation. Furthermore, we make the dataset, code and all materials publicly available.
Suicide is a critical global public health challenge, causing approximately 720,000 deaths each year and calling for timely, effective prevention strategies. Existing computational studies primarily focus on post-based social media platforms such as Twitter and Weibo, leaving instant messaging environments such as Telegram underexplored. Yet group chats pose distinct challenges: messages are short, fragmented, multi-party, and often rely on implicit or culturally specific expressions, making isolated post-level analysis insufficient. We introduce SuiChat-CN, a Chinese group-chat benchmark for contextual suicide risk assessment. We collect public Telegram group-chat data, construct coherent conversational segments through signal-word extraction and bidirectional context expansion, and annotate user risk levels with an expert-validated, LLM-assisted paradigm. SuiChat-CN contains 13,312 contextual segments from 1,406 users, covering 258,228 raw chat messages. Extensive experiments with PLMs and more than 40 LLMs demonstrate that contextual information is essential for reliable risk assessment, while fine-tuning and partial-context evaluation further reveal the challenges of early detection in multi-party conversations. Due to ethical and sensitivity concerns, the dataset is not publicly released but will be shared with accredited mental health and suicide-prevention research institutions upon reasonable request.