ArticleBMC psychiatry2022
Development and validation of a meta-learner for combining statistical and machine learning prediction models in individuals with depression.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Methodological guidance on clinical prediction models in mental health research.Psychological medicine · 2026Review
- Measurement and forecasting of the diffuse fraction of solar irradiance using a hybrid stacking model in Saudi Arabia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deep learning for detecting depression in individuals with and without alexithymia.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- A Novel Knowledge Fusion Ensemble for Diagnostic Differentiation of Pediatric Pneumonia and Acute Bronchitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Real-world outcomes of concomitant antidepressant and statin use in primary care patients with depression: a population-based cohort study.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Predicting outcomes at the individual patient level: what is the best method?BMJ mental health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe debate of whether machine learning models offer advantages over standard statistical methods when making predictions is ongoing. We discuss the use of a meta-learner model combining both approaches as an alternative.
methodsTo illustrate the development of a meta-learner, we used a dataset of 187,757 people with depression. Using 31 variables, we aimed to predict two outcomes measured 60 days after initiation of antidepressant treatment: severity of depressive symptoms (continuous) and all-cause dropouts (binary). We fitted a ridge regression and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) deep neural network as two separate prediction models ("base-learners"). We then developed two "meta-learners", combining predictions from the two base-learners. To compare the performance across the different methods, we calculated mean absolute error (MAE, for continuous outcome) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, for binary outcome) using bootstrapping.
resultsCompared to the best performing base-learner (MLP base-learner, MAE at 4.63, AUC at 0.59), the best performing meta-learner showed a 2.49% decrease in MAE at 4.52 for the continuous outcome and a 6.47% increase in AUC at 0.60 for the binary outcome.
conclusionsA meta-learner approach may effectively combine multiple prediction models. Choosing between statistical and machine learning models may not be necessary in practice.
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.