Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352387›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Machine Learning Models for the Prediction of Postpartum Depression: Application and Comparison Based on a Cohort Study.

Weina Zhang, Han Liu, Vincent Michael Bernard Silenzio, Peiyuan Qiu, Wenjie Gong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

5 authors.

Weina ZhangXiangYa School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8905-742X
Han LiuSanofi Global Research and Design Operations Center, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5951-6413
Vincent Michael Bernard SilenzioUrban-Global Public Health, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1408-7955
Peiyuan QiuWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6485-1459
Wenjie Gong *XiangYa School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7943-4041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostpartum depression (PPD) is a serious public health problem. Building a predictive model for PPD using data during pregnancy can facilitate earlier identification and intervention.

objectiveThe aims of this study are to compare the effects of four different machine learning models using data during pregnancy to predict PPD and explore which factors in the model are the most important for PPD prediction.

methodsInformation on the pregnancy period from a cohort of 508 women, including demographics, social environmental factors, and mental health, was used as predictors in the models. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score within 42 days after delivery was used as the outcome indicator. Using two feature selection methods (expert consultation and random forest-based filter feature selection [FFS-RF]) and two algorithms (support vector machine [SVM] and random forest [RF]), we developed four different machine learning PPD prediction models and compared their prediction effects.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the effectiveness of the two feature selection methods in terms of model prediction performance, but 10 fewer factors were selected with the FFS-RF than with the expert consultation method. The model based on SVM and FFS-RF had the best prediction effects (sensitivity=0.69, area under the curve=0.78). In the feature importance ranking output by the RF algorithm, psychological elasticity, depression during the third trimester, and income level were the most important predictors.

conclusionsIn contrast to the expert consultation method, FFS-RF was important in dimension reduction. When the sample size is small, the SVM algorithm is suitable for predicting PPD. In the prevention of PPD, more attention should be paid to the psychological resilience of mothers.

Indexed as

depressionmachine learningpostpartumprediction modelrandom forestsupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID32352387
PMCPMC7226048

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.