ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Comparing machine learning and artificial neural network models in psychological research: a ROC-based analysis.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding Overlapping Lower-Limb Afferent Pathways from Human Epidural Spinal Recordings.Research square · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Treatment Response to Vitamin DBiomedicines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.