Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38829349›Full record

ArticlePsychological assessment

Estimating classification consistency of machine learning models for screening measures.

Oscar Gonzalez, A R Georgeson, William E Pelham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Oscar GonzalezDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0001-7122-8799
A R GeorgesonDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University.ORCID 0000-0002-6426-9258
William E PelhamDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego.ORCID 0000-0003-1480-570X

Funding

Mental Health Computerized Adaptive TestingR01MH066302 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI GIBBONS, ROBERT D · 2002 to 2010
$5.0M
Family processes underlying adolescent substance use and conduct problems: disentangling correlation and causationK08DA055935 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI William Ellerbe Pelham III · 2022 to 2026
$959k
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent drinking in a longitudinal cohort spanning 21 U.S. citiesR21AA030197 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PELHAM III, WILLIAM ELLERBE · 2022 to 2023
$447k
Advancing measurement and scoring methods for testing mediation models of substance useF32DA053137 · NIDA · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI GEORGESON, ALEXIS RAE · 2022 to 2024
$210k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA030197NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA053137NIDA NIH HHS K08 DA055935NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH066302University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article illustrates novel quantitative methods to estimate classification consistency in machine learning models used for screening measures. Screening measures are used in psychology and medicine to classify individuals into diagnostic classifications. In addition to achieving high accuracy, it is ideal for the screening process to have high classification consistency, which means that respondents would be classified into the same group every time if the assessment was repeated. Although machine learning models are increasingly being used to predict a screening classification based on individual item responses, methods to describe the classification consistency of machine learning models have not yet been developed. This article addresses this gap by describing methods to estimate classification inconsistency in machine learning models arising from two different sources: sampling error during model fitting and measurement error in the item responses. These methods use data resampling techniques such as the bootstrap and Monte Carlo sampling. These methods are illustrated using three empirical examples predicting a health condition/diagnosis from item responses. R code is provided to facilitate the implementation of the methods. This article highlights the importance of considering classification consistency alongside accuracy when studying screening measures and provides the tools and guidance necessary for applied researchers to obtain classification consistency indices in their machine learning research on diagnostic assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Machine LearningHumansMass ScreeningModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID38829349
PMCPMC11952017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.