ArticleNature. Mental health2025
A systematic review of machine learning findings in PTSD and their relationships with theoretical models.
Article in Nature. Mental health, 2025. 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.
- Predicting mental health trajectories after potentially traumatic events: a machine learning approach.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of a short prognostic screening instrument for PTSD one year following individual civilian trauma.European journal of psychotraumatology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the application of machine learning (ML) techniques in research on the prediction of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has increased. However, concerns regarding the clinical relevance and generalizability of ML findings hamper their implementation by clinicians and researchers. Here in this systematic review we examined (1) the extent to which pre-, peri- and post-traumatic risk factors identified using ML approaches coincide with the theoretical understanding of the disorder; (2) whether new insights were gained through ML techniques; and (3) whether ML findings, combined with previous research, enable an integrative model of PTSD risk encompassing both predictor categories and their theoretical relevance. We reviewed ML studies on PTSD risk factors in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Studies were included if they specified when predictors and PTSD symptoms were collected in temporal relation to the traumatic event. A total of 30 studies with 12,908 participants (mean age 36.5 years) were included. After extracting the 15 most important predictors from all studies, we categorized them into pre-, peri- and post-trauma exposure predictors and examined their associations with established theoretical models of PTSD. Many studies exhibited a risk of bias, assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). However, we found overlaps in identified predictors across studies, a concordance between data-driven results and theory-driven research, and underexplored predictors identified through ML. We propose an integrative model of PTSD risk that incorporates both data-driven and theory-driven findings and discuss future directions. We emphasize the importance of standards on how to apply and report ML approaches for mental health.
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.