ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Predicting conversion to psychosis using machine learning: response to Cannon.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: We previously reported that machine learning could be used to predict conversion to psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis with up to 90% accuracy using the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study-3 (NAPLS-3) dataset. A definitive test of our predictive model that was trained on the NAPLS-3 data, however, requires further support through implementation in an independent dataset. In this report we tested for model generalization using the previous iteration of NAPLS-3, the NAPLS-2, using the identical machine learning algorithms employed in our previous study. Method: Standard machine learning algorithms were trained to predict conversion to psychosis in clinical high risk individuals on the NAPLS-3 dataset and tested on the NAPLS-2 dataset. Results: NAPLS-2 and -3 individuals significantly differed on most features used in machine learning models. All models performed above chance, with Naive Bayes and random forest methods showing the best overall performance. Importantly, however, overall performance did not match those previously observed when using only NAPLS-3 data. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a machine learning model trained to predict conversion to psychosis on one dataset can be used to train an independent dataset. Performance on the test set was not in the range necessary for clinical application, however. Possible reasons that limited performance are discussed.
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.