ArticlePloS one2026
Comparing machine and deep learning models for pediatric anxiety classification using structured EHRs and area-based measures of health data.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective, case-control study with internal validation evaluates the performance of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models in classifying pediatric patients at risk for anxiety disorders using structured electronic health records (EHRs) and area-based measures of health (ABMH). The aim is to enable proactive care by monitoring potential anxiety onset across developmental stages.
methodsWe trained a series of ML models (Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, XGBoost) and DL models (LSTM, GRU, RETAIN, Dipole) using structured EHR data from 30-day windows prior to diagnosis. Two datasets were used per age group: one with structured EHR data only, and another including both EHR and ABMH data. ML models were trained using short-term cross-sectional features, while DL models leveraged full longitudinal patient histories. Performance was assessed using AUROC, AUPRC, PPV, NPV, F1 score, and accuracy. Due to differences in input scope, model performance reflects both algorithmic and temporal design differences and is not intended as a direct comparison between ML and DL.
resultsML models offered strong baseline performance, with XGBoost achieving AUROC scores of 0.817 (EHR) and 0.816 (EHR+ABMH) for 8-year-olds. Adding ABMH features did not significantly improve performance. DL models, particularly RETAIN and Dipole, achieved the highest AUROC values (e.g., Dipole: 0.853 with EHR, 0.857 with EHR+ABMH for 8-year-olds), outperforming other DL and ML models within their respective design constraints.
conclusionBoth ML and DL models successfully identified likely anxiety onset using structured EHR data. DL models using longitudinal data achieved the highest performance, while XGBoost provided a robust ML baseline. The minimal impact of ABMH features highlights integration challenges, and performance variation across ages emphasizes the need for age-stratified modeling approaches.
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.