Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41798021›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Comparing machine learning and artificial neural network models in psychological research: a ROC-based analysis.

Marie-Luise Leitner, Martin Arendasy

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marie-Luise LeitnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Martin ArendasyDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The increasing use of data-driven methods in psychological assessment has raised the question of whether artificial neural networks provide advantages over established machine learning approaches in applied selection contexts. In particular, comparative evidence based on ROC-based evaluation using real-world psychological datasets remains limited. Methods: Using a dataset of Results: Logistic regression achieved the highest predictive performance (accuracy = 0.973, AUC = 0.99), followed closely by the random forest model (accuracy = 0.961, AUC = 0.98). The artificial neural network reached competitive accuracy (0.933) but showed reduced discriminative ability (AUC = 0.87) and indications of overfitting. Feature importance analyses consistently identified biology, chemistry, and numerical reasoning as the most influential predictors of admission success. Discussion: The results indicate that for medium-sized, structured psychological datasets, traditional machine learning models provide more stable, interpretable, and robust performance than the evaluated shallow neural network architecture. These findings highlight the importance of model choice and inductive bias in applied psychological research and support the continued use of classical machine learning approaches in selection and assessment contexts.

Indexed as

artificial neural networkdecision treefeature importancelogistic regressionmachine learningnoiseoverfittingROC (receiver operating characteristic)

Identifiers

PMID41798021
PMCPMC12963061

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.