ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2021
Comparing Deep Learning and Conventional Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mental Illness from History of Present Illness Notations.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental illness, a serious problem across the globe, requires multi-pronged solutions including effective computational models to predict illness. Mental illness diagnosis is complicated by the pronounced sharing of symptoms and mutual pre-dispositions. Set in this context we offer a systematic comparison of seven deep learning and two conventional machine learning models for predicting mental illness from the history of present illness free-text descriptions in patient records. The models tested include a new architecture CB-MH which ranks best for F1 (0.62) while another attention model is best for F2 (0.71). We also explore model decisions using Integrated Gradients interpretability method which we use to identify key influential features. Overall, the majority of true positives have key features appearing in meaningful contexts. False negatives are most challenging with most key features appearing in unclear contexts. False positives are mostly true positives in actuality as supported by a small-scale clinician-based user judgement study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35308915PMC8861709What 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.