ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Machine learning based multimodel prediction of poor wellbeing, generalized anxiety disorder, and insomnia among adults in Indian urban informal settlements: toward explainable digital mental health screening.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
Introduction: Mental health morbidity among urban informal settlements-dwelling populations is shaped by a complex interplay of behavioural exposures including screen time, working hours, and sleep duration and sociodemographic vulnerability. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 1,600 adults recruited from 16 clusters within the urban informal settlement field practice area of a medical college's Urban Health Training Centre in Pune, India, to develop and compare ten supervised machine learning algorithms predicting poor wellbeing (WHO-5), moderate-to-severe generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7), and moderate-to-severe insomnia (ISI); internal consistency of all three instruments was confirmed from item-level responses. Because participants were nested within 16 clusters, our primary analysis used leave-one-cluster-out (LOCO) cross-validation, in which each cluster was held out in turn as an independent test set; a conventional participant-level 80/20 split with 10-fold cross-validation was retained as a secondary analysis. Model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were assessed using AUC, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, Brier score, decision curve analysis, and DeLong's test, each with cluster-level bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. SHAP was used to interpret the best-performing model, and feature-attribution concordance was additionally assessed across the Rashomon set of near-equivalent top models. Results: The WHO-5, GAD-7, and ISI showed acceptable-to-excellent internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach's alpha 0.730-0.938; McDonald's omega 0.815-0.953). LightGBM achieved the highest primary (LOCO-CV) AUC for all three outcomes: 0.977 (95% CI 0.970-0.983) for poor wellbeing, 0.987 (95% CI 0.984-0.992) for GAD, and 0.988 (95% CI 0.982-0.993) for insomnia. Several sociodemographic predictors showed unusually strong univariate associations with the outcomes, traced to a repeating between-cluster pattern in the sampling frame; this structure means that even cluster-aware validation may remain optimistic relative to a genuinely external population, a limitation we discuss in detail. SHAP-based rankings were highly concordant (Spearman Conclusion: Gradient-boosted tree ensembles, particularly LightGBM, showed strong and internally consistent discrimination for these three outcomes, assessed using reliable instruments; however, given the between-cluster homogeneity identified in this sample, external validation in an independent population is essential before any claim of generalizable clinical utility.
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.