ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting treatment response to cognitive behavior therapy in social anxiety disorder on the basis of demographics, psychiatric history, and scales: A machine learning approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Treatment Response in Patients With Anxiety Disorders After Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
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
Abstract
Only about half of patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) respond substantially to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, there has been little evidence available to clinicians or patients about whether any individual patient is more or less likely to have a positive response to CBT. Here, we used machine learning on data from 157 patients to examine whether individual patient responses to CBT can be predicted based on demographic information, psychiatric history, and self-reported or clinician-reported scales, subscales and questionnaires acquired prior to treatment. Machine learning models were able to explain about 26% of the variance in final treatment improvements. To assess generalizability, we evaluated multiple machine learning models using cross-validation and determined which input features were essential for prediction. While prediction accuracy was similar across models, the importance of specific features varied across models. In general, the combination of total scale score, subscale scores and responses to individual questions on a severity measure, the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), was the most informative in achieving the highest predictions that alone accounted for about 26% of the variance in treatment outcome. Demographic information, psychiatric history, personality measures, other self-reported or clinician-reported questionnaires, and clinical scales related to anxiety, depression, and quality of life provided no additional predictive power. These findings indicate that combining scaled and individual responses to LSAS questions are informative for predicting individual response to CBT in patients with SAD.
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.