ArticleJournal of medical systems2023
Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers Using Machine Learning: A Proof of Concept.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mental health monitoring in the workplace using artificial intelligence: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Machine learning in the analysis of mental health at work: a scoping review.Journal of occupational health · 2026Article
- Burnout protective patterns among oncology nurses: a cross-sectional study using machine learning analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to train and test preliminary models using two machine learning algorithms to identify healthcare workers at risk of developing anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The study included data from a prospective cohort study of 816 healthcare workers collected using a mobile application during the first two waves of COVID-19. Each week, the participants responded to 11 questions and completed three screening questionnaires (one for anxiety, one for depression, and one for post-traumatic stress disorder). Then, the research team selected two questions (out of the 11), which were used with biological sex to identify whether scores on each screening questionnaire would be positive or negative. The analyses involved a fivefold cross-validation to test the accuracy of models based on logistic regression and support vector machines using cross-sectional and cumulative measures. The findings indicated that the models derived from the two questions and biological sex accurately identified screening scores for anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorders in 70% to 80% of cases. However, the positive predictive value never exceeded 50%, underlining the importance of collecting more data to train better models. Our proof of concept demonstrates the feasibility of using machine learning to develop novel models to screen for psychological distress in at-risk healthcare workers. Developing models with fewer questions may reduce burdens of active monitoring in practical settings by decreasing the weekly assessment duration.
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.