ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
An Interpretable Model With Probabilistic Integrated Scoring for Mental Health Treatment Prediction: Design Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who engages? Machine learning insights into digital mindfulness-based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder.Journal of affective disorders · 2026Trial
- Extrinsic Trust as a Contractual Framework for Accountable AI in Health Care: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Using SHAP and LIME to Explain Machine Learning Models Predicting Comorbid Depression and Stroke From Daily Dietary Nutrient Intake in a US Population-Based Study.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Investigating How Clinicians Form Trust in an AI-Based Mental Health Model: Qualitative Case Study.JMIR human factors · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) systems in health care have the potential to enhance decision-making but often fail to address critical issues such as prediction explainability, confidence, and robustness in a context-based and easily interpretable manner.
objectiveThis study aimed to design and evaluate an ML model for a future decision support system for clinical psychopathological treatment assessments. The novel ML model is inherently interpretable and transparent. It aims to enhance clinical explainability and trust through a transparent, hierarchical model structure that progresses from questions to scores to classification predictions. The model confidence and robustness were addressed by applying Monte Carlo dropout, a probabilistic method that reveals model uncertainty and confidence.
methodsA model for clinical psychopathological treatment assessments was developed, incorporating a novel ML model structure. The model aimed at enhancing the graphical interpretation of the model outputs and addressing issues of prediction explainability, confidence, and robustness. The proposed ML model was trained and validated using patient questionnaire answers and demographics from a web-based treatment service in Denmark (N=1088).
resultsThe balanced accuracy score on the test set was 0.79. The precision was ≥0.71 for all 4 prediction classes (depression, panic, social phobia, and specific phobia). The area under the curve for the 4 classes was 0.93, 0.92, 0.91, and 0.98, respectively.
conclusionsWe have demonstrated a mental health treatment ML model that supported a graphical interpretation of prediction class probability distributions. Their spread and overlap can inform clinicians of competing treatment possibilities for patients and uncertainty in treatment predictions. With the ML model achieving 79% balanced accuracy, we expect that the model will be clinically useful in both screening new patients and informing clinical interviews.
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.