Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775769›Full record

SynthesisCadernos de saude publica2024

How do machine learning models perform in the detection of depression, anxiety, and stress among undergraduate students? A systematic review.

Bruno Luis Schaab, Prisla Ücker Calvetti, Sofia Hoffmann, Gabriela Bertoletti Diaz, Maurício Rech, Sílvio César Cazella, Airton Tetelbom Stein, Helena Maria Tannhauser Barros, Pamela Carvalho da Silva, Caroline Tozzi Reppold

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cadernos de saude publica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Bruno Luis SchaabUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0003-3399-1579
Prisla Ücker CalvettiUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0003-0581-9595
Sofia HoffmannUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-3257-7010
Gabriela Bertoletti DiazUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0182-8307
Maurício RechUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0001-5297-5211
Sílvio César CazellaUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0003-2343-893X
Airton Tetelbom SteinUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-8756-8699
Helena Maria Tannhauser BarrosUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0779-7732
Pamela Carvalho da SilvaUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0001-8268-348X
Caroline Tozzi ReppoldUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0236-2553

Funding

Research Support, Non-US Gov’t
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Undergraduate students are often impacted by depression, anxiety, and stress. In this context, machine learning may support mental health assessment. Based on the following research question: "How do machine learning models perform in the detection of depression, anxiety, and stress among undergraduate students?", we aimed to evaluate the performance of these models. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched, aiming at studies meeting the following criteria: publication in English; targeting undergraduate university students; empirical studies; having been published in a scientific journal; and predicting anxiety, depression, or stress outcomes via machine learning. The certainty of evidence was analyzed using the GRADE. As of January 2024, 2,304 articles were found, and 48 studies met the inclusion criteria. Different types of data were identified, including behavioral, physiological, internet usage, neurocerebral, blood markers, mixed data, as well as demographic and mobility data. Among the 33 studies that provided accuracy assessment, 30 reported values that exceeded 70%. Accuracy in detecting stress ranged from 63% to 100%, anxiety from 53.69% to 97.9%, and depression from 73.5% to 99.1%. Although most models present adequate performance, it should be noted that 47 of them only performed internal validation, which may overstate the performance data. Moreover, the GRADE checklist suggested that the quality of the evidence was very low. These findings indicate that machine learning algorithms hold promise in Public Health; however, it is crucial to scrutinize their practical applicability. Further studies should invest mainly in external validation of the machine learning models.

Indexed as

AnxietyDepressionMachine LearningStress, PsychologicalStudentsHumansUniversities

Identifiers

PMID39775769
PMCPMC11654111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.