Also, "most." Presumably most attempters were not participating in the study's surveys, so it would be impossible for the study to predict for them.

▲

gdhkgdhkvff a day ago | parent [-]

I mean, sure. Things can be wrong if you intentionally misunderstand words to mean something that they weren’t intended to mean. Is there anyone that legitimately thought that “most” here meant “majority of all actual attempts”?

▲

loeg a day ago | parent | next [-]

It's a pretty straightforward reading of the headline. Of course almost everyone understands it would be impossible. But like, you can also just write more clearly.

▲

andsoitis a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Is there anyone that legitimately thought that “most” here meant “majority of all actual attempts”?

What does “most” mean in the story?

▲

john_strinlai a day ago | parent [-]

it's in the third paragraph of the link

▲

spiderice a day ago | parent [-]

Kind of? But not really.

> his lab predicted 75 percent of suicide attempts and 87 percent of suicide-related events in the week before they occurred

But what is the false positive rate? I could predict 100% of the worlds suicides a week in advance if I just predict that everyone will commit suicide next week. Also,

> The study included a real-time alert system for intervening if a person indicated a high suicidal intent

Wouldn't this skew the study drastically? "Here you go. Push this button if you're absolutely going to commit suicide". I'm sure that isn't how the alert system worked, but it seems like you'd definitely get a lot higher rate of "suicide attempts" if the participants of the study know it's going to get the attention of the clinic to intervene.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]