ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Interpretable machine learning approaches for children's ADHD detection using clinical assessment data: an online web application deployment.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Narrative Review of Recent Clinical Applications and Ethical Considerations.Current psychiatry reports · 2026Review
- An explainable machine learning-based approach to predicting treatment response for neurofeedback in ADHD.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting ADHD in Children and Adolescents With Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review of Common Models.Health science reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent mental disorder characterized by hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention. This study aims to develop a verifiable and interpretable machine learning model to identify ADHD and its subtypes in children using clinical assessment scales data.
methodsThis study utilized the ADHD-200 dataset, including demographic data, Behavioral Rating Scale, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale assessments, to train and validate our models. The model's performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation within the internal dataset, and the best model will be used for external validation. Seven machine learning models were evaluated. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was employed for model interpretation. Finally, a web application will deploy the prediction model to provide ADHD probabilities based on user input.
resultsThe Random Forest (RF) model performing best in identifying ADHD and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) model excelling in distinguishing ADHD subtypes. The RF model achieved an AUC of 0.99 in 10-fold cross-validation and an AUC of 0.99 in external validation, and the SVM model achieved a micro-average AUC of 0.96 and an accuracy of 0.83 in internal validation and a micro-average AUC of 0.96 and an accuracy of 0.85 in external validation. We used SHAP to interpret the models, revealing that higher ADHD Index pushed the model towards ADHD classification. Additionally, lower IQ scores were correlated with a higher likelihood of ADHD, consistent with previous studies. The dependency analysis found that the model can identify different behavioral scales. We deployed the final model online using a web application and showed users how the model made decisions.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the potential of using machine learning and clinical assessment scales to support the diagnosis and subtype identification of ADHD in children, offering a practical solution for improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in clinical settings.
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.