ArticlePloS one2019
A comparison of machine learning algorithms for the surveillance of autism spectrum disorder.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advocating the potential of artificial intelligence for syndrome discovery in syndromic surveillance systems: A scoping review.iScience · 2026Review
- Finding the forest in the trees: Using machine learning and online cognitive and perceptual measures to predict adult autism diagnosis.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Deep learning for autism detection using clinical notes: A comparison of transfer learning for a transparent and black-box approach.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2026Article
- Transparent deep learning to identify autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in EHR using clinical notes.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Leveraging automated approaches to categorize birth defects from abstracted birth hospitalization data.Birth defects research · 2024Article
- Comparison of 2 Case Definitions for Ascertaining the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among 8-Year-Old Children.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Automatic classification of autism spectrum disorder in children using cortical thickness and support vector machine.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
- Is the Combination of ADOS and ADI-R Necessary to Classify ASD? Rethinking the "Gold Standard" in Diagnosing ASD.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Identifying predictive features of autism spectrum disorders in a clinical sample of adolescents and adults using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coordinates a labor-intensive process to measure the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children in the United States. Random forests methods have shown promise in speeding up this process, but they lag behind human classification accuracy by about 5%. We explore whether more recently available document classification algorithms can close this gap. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing data gathered from a single surveillance site, we applied 8 supervised learning algorithms to predict whether children meet the case definition for ASD based solely on the words in their evaluations. We compared the algorithms' performance across 10 random train-test splits of the data, using classification accuracy, F1 score, and number of positive calls to evaluate their potential use for surveillance.
resultsAcross the 10 train-test cycles, the random forest and support vector machine with Naive Bayes features (NB-SVM) each achieved slightly more than 87% mean accuracy. The NB-SVM produced significantly more false negatives than false positives (P = 0.027), but the random forest did not, making its prevalence estimates very close to the true prevalence in the data. The best-performing neural network performed similarly to the random forest on both measures. DISCUSSION: The random forest performed as well as more recently available models like the NB-SVM and the neural network, and it also produced good prevalence estimates. NB-SVM may not be a good candidate for use in a fully-automated surveillance workflow due to increased false negatives. More sophisticated algorithms, like hierarchical convolutional neural networks, may not be feasible to train due to characteristics of the data. Current algorithms might perform better if the data are abstracted and processed differently and if they take into account information about the children in addition to their evaluations.
conclusionDeep learning models performed similarly to traditional machine learning methods at predicting the clinician-assigned case status for CDC's autism surveillance system. While deep learning methods had limited benefit in this task, they may have applications in other surveillance systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.