ArticleBrain informatics2023
Machine learning determination of applied behavioral analysis treatment plan type.
Article in Brain informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06204536 (The Efficacy of Technology-Based Tools in Applied Behavior Analysis Treatment Planning for Autism Spectrum Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
The Efficacy of Technology-Based Tools in Applied Behavior Analysis Treatment Planning for Autism Spectrum Disorder
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning to evaluate the effects of non-clinical social determinant features in predicting colorectal Cancer mortality in a medically underserved Appalachian population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Applied Behavior Analysis: Key Points to Improve Autism Treatment.Alpha psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Differentiation of Autism Spectrum Sub-Classifications.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- Parent-Led Applied Behavior Analysis to Impact Clinical Outcomes for Individuals on the Autism Spectrum: Retrospective Chart Review.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- OpenMedLM: prompt engineering can out-perform fine-tuning in medical question-answering with open-source large language models.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Family-Centric Applied Behavior Analysis Promotes Sustained Treatment Utilization and Attainment of Patient Goals.Cureus · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Approach with Harmonized Multinational Datasets for Enhanced Prediction of Hypothyroidism in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Family-Centric Applied Behavior Analysis Facilitates Improved Treatment Utilization and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A Prediction Model of Autism Spectrum Diagnosis from Well-Baby Electronic Data Using Machine Learning.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Approach for Improved Longitudinal Prediction of Progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer's Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApplied behavioral analysis (ABA) is regarded as the gold standard treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with ASD. It can be delivered at different intensities, which are classified as comprehensive or focused treatment approaches. Comprehensive ABA targets multiple developmental domains and involves 20-40 h/week of treatment. Focused ABA targets individual behaviors and typically involves 10-20 h/week of treatment. Determining the appropriate treatment intensity involves patient assessment by trained therapists, however, the final determination is highly subjective and lacks a standardized approach. In our study, we examined the ability of a machine learning (ML) prediction model to classify which treatment intensity would be most suited individually for patients with ASD who are undergoing ABA treatment.
methodsRetrospective data from 359 patients diagnosed with ASD were analyzed and included in the training and testing of an ML model for predicting comprehensive or focused treatment for individuals undergoing ABA treatment. Data inputs included demographics, schooling, behavior, skills, and patient goals. A gradient-boosted tree ensemble method, XGBoost, was used to develop the prediction model, which was then compared against a standard of care comparator encompassing features specified by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board treatment guidelines. Prediction model performance was assessed via area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsThe prediction model achieved excellent performance for classifying patients in the comprehensive versus focused treatment groups (AUROC: 0.895; 95% CI 0.811-0.962) and outperformed the standard of care comparator (AUROC 0.767; 95% CI 0.629-0.891). The prediction model also achieved sensitivity of 0.789, specificity of 0.808, PPV of 0.6, and NPV of 0.913. Out of 71 patients whose data were employed to test the prediction model, only 14 misclassifications occurred. A majority of misclassifications (n = 10) indicated comprehensive ABA treatment for patients that had focused ABA treatment as the ground truth, therefore still providing a therapeutic benefit. The three most important features contributing to the model's predictions were bathing ability, age, and hours per week of past ABA treatment.
conclusionThis research demonstrates that the ML prediction model performs well to classify appropriate ABA treatment plan intensity using readily available patient data. This may aid with standardizing the process for determining appropriate ABA treatments, which can facilitate initiation of the most appropriate treatment intensity for patients with ASD and improve resource allocation.
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.