SynthesisClinical psychology review2025
Machine learning in the prediction of treatment response for emotional disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical psychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Clinically Meaningful Improvement After Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety Disorders: Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model Development and Temporal Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Learning the Boundary Between Involvement and Severity: A Multi-Target Machine-Learning Analysis of Emotion Dysregulation, Impulsivity, Gambling Involvement, and Problem Severity in Psychiatric Outpatients.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Redesigning Mental Health Care: Core Principles for Integrating Systems, Technology and Clinical Workflows.Current psychiatry reports · 2026Review
- The unintended negative consequences of artificial intelligence use for psychologists.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of an interpretable machine learning model for obesity-depression comorbidity in Korean and US adults.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence as decision support for adolescent depression and anxiety: a mini review of clinical utility, safety, and implementation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Language-informed treatment recommendations in psychiatry: bridging the gap in individual predictability.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in and Beyond Healthcare Psychology.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmotional disorders such as depression and anxiety affect millions globally and pose a significant burden on public health. Personalized treatment approaches using machine learning (ML) to predict treatment response could revolutionize treatment strategies. However, there is limited evidence as to whether ML is successful in predicting treatment outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the accuracy of ML algorithms in predicting binary treatment response (responder vs. non-responder) to evidence-based psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies, and other treatments for emotional disorders, and to examine moderators of prediction accuracy.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed and PsycINFO from January 1st, 2010 to March 27th, 2025. Studies were included if they used ML methods to predict treatment response in patients with emotional disorders. Data were extracted on sample size, type of treatment, predictors used, ML methods, and prediction accuracy. Meta-analytic techniques were used to synthesize findings and identify moderators of prediction accuracy.
resultsOut of 3816 non-duplicate records, 155 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall mean prediction accuracy was 0.76 (95 % CI: 0.74-0.78), and the mean area under the curve was 0.80 indicating good discrimination. The average sensitivity and specificity were 0.73 and 0.75, respectively. Moderator analyses indicated that studies using more robust cross-validation procedures exhibited higher prediction accuracy. Neuroimaging data as predictors were associated with higher accuracy compared to clinical and demographic data. Moreover, results indicated that studies with larger responder rates, as well as those that did not correct for imbalances in outcome rates, were associated with higher prediction accuracy.
conclusionsML methods show promise in predicting treatment response for emotional disorders, with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the type of predictors used and the rigor of methodological procedures implemented. Future research should focus on improving methodological integrity and exploring the integration of multimodal data to enhance prediction accuracy.
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.