ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Classification of psychiatry clinical notes by diagnosis: a deep learning and machine learning approach.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 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.
- Machine learning-based screening model for Tic disorders comorbid with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and SHAP value interpretation: a retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Beyond classification metrics: a psychometric-aware benchmark for data augmentation in imbalanced student mental health surveys.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The classification of clinical notes into specific diagnostic categories is critical in healthcare, especially for mental health conditions like anxiety and adjustment disorder. In this study, we compare the performance of various artificial intelligence models, including both traditional machine learning approaches (random forest, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, decision tree, and eXtreme Gradient Boost) and deep learning models (DistilBERT and SciBERT), to classify clinical notes into these two diagnoses. Additionally, we implemented three oversampling strategies: No Oversampling, Random Oversampling, and Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), to assess their impact on model performance. Hyperparameter tuning was also applied to optimize model accuracy. Our results indicate that oversampling techniques had minimal impact on model performance overall. The only exception was SMOTE, which showed a positive effect specifically with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-based models. However, hyperparameter optimization significantly improved accuracy across the models, enhancing their ability to generalize and perform on the dataset. The decision tree and eXtreme Gradient Boost models achieved the highest accuracy among machine learning approaches, both reaching 96%, while the DistilBERT and SciBERT models also attained 96% accuracy in the deep learning category. These findings underscore the importance of hyperparameter tuning in maximizing model performance. This study contributes to the ongoing research on AI-assisted diagnostic tools in mental health by providing insights into the efficacy of different model architectures and data balancing methods.
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.