ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Toward precision psychological rehabilitation: predicting CBT efficacy in post-stroke depression using machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Machine learning-based prediction model for cognitive frailty in elderly patients with ischaemic stroke: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study retrospectively examined the potential benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for post-stroke depression (PSD) and developed an interpretable machine learning model to predict individual treatment response. Methods: Clinical and psychological data from 120 PSD patients receiving CBT and 123 patients in a control group were analyzed. Changes in PHQ-9, GAD-7, and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) scores were compared between groups. Within the CBT cohort, a random forest classifier was trained to predict treatment response and compared with logistic regression and gradient boosting models. SHAP values and ablation analyses were used to assess feature contributions and model interpretability. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. The CBT group showed greater improvement in depressive symptoms than the control group. Among predictive models, the random forest classifier demonstrated the highest performance (AUC = 0.897; accuracy = 0.861). SHAP and ablation analyses consistently highlighted baseline depressive severity (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), self-efficacy (GSE), and social support (SSRS) as the most influential predictors of CBT response. Conclusion: CBT was associated with greater improvement in depressive symptoms among patients with post-stroke depression; however, causal inferences should be made cautiously given the retrospective design. The proposed machine learning model shows preliminary promise for predicting treatment response, but further validation in prospective and multi-center studies is needed before clinical implementation.
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.