Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35308915›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2021

Comparing Deep Learning and Conventional Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mental Illness from History of Present Illness Notations.

Ingroj Shrestha, Padmini Srinivasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Ingroj ShresthaUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States.
Padmini SrinivasanUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningMental DisordersHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID35308915
PMCPMC8861709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.