ArticleInternet interventions2024
Making the most out of timeseries symptom data: A machine learning study on symptom predictions of internet-based CBT.
Article in Internet interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Latent trait or sum score: addressing measurement challenges in the prediction of self-rated symptom outcomes in psychological treatment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Natural language processing models for predicting treatment outcomes in internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy.Internet interventions · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Predicting who will not benefit enough from Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral (ICBT) Therapy early on can assist in better allocation of limited mental health care resources. Repeated measures of symptoms during treatment is the strongest predictor of outcome, and we want to investigate if methods that explicitly account for time-dependency are superior to methods that do not, with data from (a) only two pre-treatment timepoints and (b) the pre-treatment timepoints and three timepoints during initial treatment. Methods: We use 1) commonly used time-independent methods (i.e., Linear Regression and Random Forest models) and 2) time-dependent methods (i.e., multilevel model regression, mixed-effects random forest, and a Long Short-Term Memory model) to predict symptoms during treatment, including the final outcome. This is done with symptom scores from 6436 ICBT patients from regular care, using robust multiple imputation and nested cross-validation methods. Results: The models had a 14 %-12 % root mean squared error (RMSE) in predicting the post-treatment outcome, corresponding to a balanced accuracy of 67-74 %. Time-dependent models did not have higher accuracies. Using data for the initial treatment period (b) instead of only from before treatment (a) increased prediction results by 1.3 % percentage points (12 % to 10.7 %) RMSE and 6 % percentage points BACC (69 % to 75 %). Conclusion: Training prediction models on only symptom scores of the first few weeks is a promising avenue for symptom predictions in treatment, regardless of which model is used. Further research is necessary to better understand the interaction between model complexity, dataset length and width, and the prediction tasks at hand.
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.