Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32251439›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Predicting mental health problems in adolescence using machine learning techniques.

Ashley E Tate, Ryan C McCabe, Henrik Larsson, Sebastian Lundström, Paul Lichtenstein, Ralf Kuja-Halkola

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyTwin Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Predicting psychopathology symptom trajectories using machine learning: a 33-year prospective study.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026
    Article
  6. Leveraging Machine Learning to Uncover Ethnic-Specific Predictors of Maternal Postpartum Depression.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ashley E TateDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4523-6960
Ryan C McCabeSpotify, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1239-4380
Henrik LarssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sebastian LundströmCentre for Ethics, Law and Mental Health (CELAM), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Paul LichtensteinDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ralf Kuja-HalkolaDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting which children will go on to develop mental health symptoms as adolescents is critical for early intervention and preventing future, severe negative outcomes. Although many aspects of a child's life, personality, and symptoms have been flagged as indicators, there is currently no model created to screen the general population for the risk of developing mental health problems. Additionally, the advent of machine learning techniques represents an exciting way to potentially improve upon the standard prediction modelling technique, logistic regression. Therefore, we aimed to I.) develop a model that can predict mental health problems in mid-adolescence II.) investigate if machine learning techniques (random forest, support vector machines, neural network, and XGBoost) will outperform logistic regression.

methodsIn 7,638 twins from the Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden we used 474 predictors derived from parental report and register data. The outcome, mental health problems, was determined by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Model performance was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsAlthough model performance varied somewhat, the confidence interval overlapped for each model indicating non-significant superiority for the random forest model (AUC = 0.739, 95% CI 0.708-0.769), followed closely by support vector machines (AUC = 0.735, 95% CI 0.707-0.764).

conclusionUltimately, our top performing model would not be suitable for clinical use, however it lays important groundwork for future models seeking to predict general mental health outcomes. Future studies should make use of parent-rated assessments when possible. Additionally, it may not be necessary for similar studies to forgo logistic regression in favor of other more complex methods.

Indexed as

Mental HealthModels, PsychologicalSupport Vector MachineTwinsAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersPredictive Value of TestsSweden

Identifiers

PMID32251439
PMCPMC7135284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.