ArticleDigital health
Explainable artificial intelligence approaches for predicting depression by combining feature selection methods and machine learning classifiers.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence approaches for schizophrenia prediction and its biomarkers using medical imaging data.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
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
Objective: Depression represents a significant global health challenge, further complicated by the multifaceted and complex nature of its diagnosis and treatment. This study explores the application of multiple feature selection (FS) methodologies combined with XAI (explainable artificial intelligence) method named SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to enhance predictive accuracy in depression classification models using large-scale national survey data. Methods: Leveraging microdata from the National Mental Health Survey of Korea (2021), encompassing 5511 Korean adults, this research systematically evaluates how different FS-machine learning classifier combinations affect model performance and identifies nondiagnostic socioeconomic, psychological, and lifestyle factors associated with clinically diagnosed depression. By employing diverse FS methods (e.g., ReliefF, Markov Blanket, and Information Gain) across multiple machine learning classifiers, we systematically compare their performance across 12 classifiers. Results: We demonstrate that optimal FS method selection depends on machine learning classifier architecture, with ReliefF excelling in Stacking (F2-score =0.9851) and Markov Blanket performing best in ExtraTrees and LightGBM (F2-score =0.9848, 0.9838). After excluding core diagnostic criteria variables to avoid circularity, our analysis reveals that social distress (loneliness), reluctance to seek professional help, quality of life measures, and physical health comorbidities emerge as highly influential nondiagnostic predictors. Conclusion: Our findings advance the field by: (1) systematically demonstrating that FS method effectiveness varies by machine learning classifier type, (2) providing a dual-layer XAI framework combining FS with SHAP for comprehensive interpretability, and (3) identifying culturally specific risk factors in an underrepresented Asian population using high-quality face-to-face collected data. These contributions provide methodological guidance for researchers developing interpretable depression prediction models and offer clinically actionable insights for identifying at-risk individuals in Korean populations.
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.