SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Applications of machine learning algorithms to detect digital addiction: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital addiction (DA) has emerged as a significant global concern, yet traditional diagnostic methods relying on self-report questionnaires face subjective bias and threshold inconsistencies. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) offer promising alternatives for automated DA detection. This study conducted a systematic meta-analysis of 64 eligible studies (75 independent datasets; N = 165,624), employing both single-group proportion and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) models. The pooled classification accuracy was 0.87 (95% CI [0.85, 0.90]), and the DTA framework yielded a robust AUC of 0.92, with balanced sensitivity and specificity (both 0.86). Subgroup analyses showed high accuracy across subtypes, particularly for internet (0.90) and social media addiction (0.86). Accuracy was comparable between survey-based and physiological data, though physiological markers demonstrated superior specificity (0.90). These findings underscore the potential of ML-driven tools as scalable screening instruments while emphasizing the need for representative sampling and standardized diagnostic criteria to advance digital mental health practice.
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.