SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
A systematic review of EEG-based biomarkers for depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder: trends in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).
Synthesis 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, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electroencephalogram for the Diagnosis of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Brain topography · 2026Pooled it
- From EEG signals to quantitative assessment: predicting depression severity using a novel deep learning framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Advances in the Application of Brain-Computer Interface-Based Neurofeedback Training in the Rehabilitation of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
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
backgroundMood and anxiety disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD), and anxiety disorders, affect millions worldwide and pose significant diagnostic challenges. Electroencephalography (EEG) has emerged as a non-invasive neurophysiological tool for identifying biomarkers of these disorders. However, the adoption of deep learning and machine learning in EEG analysis introduces interpretability concerns that limit clinical trust and applicability. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) offers transparent insights into model decisions, aiming to improve trust and clinical adoption of AI tools.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to critically evaluate the landscape of EEG-based biomarkers for depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder as informed by XAI techniques. Specifically, it explores the nature of EEG features selected through explainable models, their physiological plausibility, diagnostic performance, methodological quality, and clinical translatability.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Embase databases for studies published between 2015 and 2025. Inclusion criteria were studies employing EEG-derived features for mood disorder classification using machine learning or deep learning, coupled with at least one post-hoc XAI method (e.g. SHAP, LIME, attention maps). A total of 145 studies were included. Thematic synthesis was organized into key domains: EEG protocol and feature extraction, model performance, XAI methods, interpretability outcomes, risk of bias, translational barriers, and publication trends.
resultsThe review revealed that spectral features (e.g. alpha and beta power), functional connectivity metrics (e.g. PLI, PCC), and time-domain measures (e.g. Hjorth parameters) were the most commonly exploited EEG features. XAI-enhanced models consistently identified physiologically valid biomarkers such as frontal alpha asymmetry in MDD and frontal–parietal beta connectivity in BD. Machine learning models—including SVM, Random Forest, and deep neural networks—achieved high diagnostic accuracies (75–99%) across studies. SHAP and LIME were the most widely used interpretability methods, offering feature importance explanations that aligned well with known pathophysiological patterns. However, approximately 65% of studies exhibited high risk of bias due to small sample sizes, lack of external validation, and methodological inconsistencies. Ethical and translational concerns included limited clinician trust, lack of regulatory frameworks, and potential algorithmic bias. Publication trends showed exponential growth in EEG-XAI research post-2020, particularly in studies targeting depression.
conclusionEEG-XAI frameworks represent a transformative approach to neuropsychiatric diagnostics by coupling physiological insights with algorithmic transparency. While explainable models enhance diagnostic confidence and interpretability, their clinical utility is contingent upon methodological rigor, ethical safeguards, and cross-disciplinary validation. Future research should prioritize multi-site data harmonization, larger cohorts, and longitudinal designs to facilitate the safe and effective deployment of EEG-XAI tools in clinical psychiatry. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NA.
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.