ReviewPsychological medicine2026
Methodological guidance on clinical prediction models in mental health research.
Review in Psychological medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical prediction models play a crucial role in advancing personalized care for mental health disorders, providing essential insights for diagnosis, prognosis and intervention planning. This work examines the current methodological approaches used to develop such models, emphasizing their application to mental health problems, including depression. To illustrate these concepts, we used data on prenatal depression from a multinational observational study of 5,372 pregnant women. The goal is to develop an individual prognostic model for depressive symptoms that can be used already at the beginning of pregnancy. Our analysis explores variable selection strategies, validation methodologies and the integration of clinical expertise with data-driven approaches. Particular attention is given to addressing challenges such as population heterogeneity, overfitting and the importance of external validation for generalizability across diverse settings. We distinguish between statistical regression models and machine learning techniques, discussing their respective strengths and limitations in terms of interpretability, predictive accuracy and clinical usability. This work offers practical guidance for researchers and clinicians, focusing on the critical steps for model development and implementation. We highlight best practices to avoid common pitfalls, advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration and address challenges of integrating advanced statistical and machine learning tools into clinical practice. By providing practical guidance and addressing these issues, our aim is to support the development of robust and clinically relevant prediction models.
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.