Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602302›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Constructing a risk screen for attention difficulty in U.S. adults using six machine learning methods.

Ying Song, Yansun Sun, Zedan Guo, Li Yi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ying SongDepartment of Neurology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yansun SunDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Zedan GuoDepartment of Neurology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Li YiDepartment of Neurology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Concentration difficulty is recognized as a hallmark of various neurologic and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, an accurate estimation of epidemiological risk factors for concentration difficulty remains severely limited. Aims: The study aimed to develop an interpretable machine-learning (ML) model to predict risk factors of concentration difficulty among adults in the United States. Methods: A total of 9,971 participants were included from the 2015-2016 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Six ML algorithms, including Logistic Regression, ExtraTrees classifier, Bagging, Gradient Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Random Forest (RF), were applied in this study. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, specificity, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration plots. Finally, a nomogram was constructed based on the best performing model. Results: Of these, 2,146 participants aged 20 years and older were analyzed. Logistic regression exhibited the best clinical predictive value in both internal and external validation sets, with AUCs of 0.881 and 0.818, respectively. The DCA curve revealed that logistic regression exhibited the greatest net benefits in the internal cohort, whereas the RF model provided the largest net benefits in the external cohort (threshold: 0.2-0.3). Conclusion: Logistic regression exhibited the highest clinical value in predicting concentration difficulty. These findings provide valuable insights for the recognition, management, and effective interference strategies for concentration difficulty.

Indexed as

concentration difficultylogistic regressionmachine learningneuropsychiatric disordersNHANES

Identifiers

PMID41602302
PMCPMC12833214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.