ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating Machine Learning Stability in Predicting Depression and Anxiety Amidst Subjective Response Errors.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning approaches to anxiety detection: trends, model evaluation, and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Extrinsic Trust as a Contractual Framework for Accountable AI in Health Care: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Predictors of emotional well-being in university professors using Machine Learning.F1000Research · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Depression Risk Prediction Models for Older Adults Analyzing From the Perspective of the Health Ecology Model: A Scoping Review.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
- Early detection of mental health disorders using machine learning models using behavioral and voice data analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) pose significant burdens on individuals and society, necessitating accurate prediction methods. Machine learning (ML) algorithms utilizing electronic health records and survey data offer promising tools for forecasting these conditions. However, potential bias and inaccuracies inherent in subjective survey responses can undermine the precision of such predictions. This research investigates the reliability of five prominent ML algorithms-a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Random Forest, XGBoost, Logistic Regression, and Naive Bayes-in predicting MDD and GAD. A dataset rich in biomedical, demographic, and self-reported survey information is used to assess the algorithms' performance under different levels of subjective response inaccuracies. These inaccuracies simulate scenarios with potential memory recall bias and subjective interpretations. While all algorithms demonstrate commendable accuracy with high-quality survey data, their performance diverges significantly when encountering erroneous or biased responses. Notably, the CNN exhibits superior resilience in this context, maintaining performance and even achieving enhanced accuracy, Cohen's kappa score, and positive precision for both MDD and GAD. This highlights the CNN's superior ability to handle data unreliability, making it a potentially advantageous choice for predicting mental health conditions based on self-reported data. These findings underscore the critical importance of algorithmic resilience in mental health prediction, particularly when relying on subjective data. They emphasize the need for careful algorithm selection in such contexts, with the CNN emerging as a promising candidate due to its robustness and improved performance under data uncertainties.
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.