Population modeling with machine learning can enhance measures of mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biological aging is revealed by physical measures, e.g., DNA probes or brain scans. In contrast, individual differences in mental function are explained by psychological constructs, e.g., intelligence or neuroticism. These constructs are typically assessed by tailored neuropsychological tests that build on expert judgement and require careful interpretation. Could machine learning on large samples from the general population be used to build proxy measures of these constructs that do not require human intervention? RESULTS: Here, we built proxy measures by applying machine learning on multimodal MR images and rich sociodemographic information from the largest biomedical cohort to date: the UK Biobank. Objective model comparisons revealed that all proxies captured the target constructs and were as useful, and sometimes more useful, than the original measures for characterizing real-world health behavior (sleep, exercise, tobacco, alcohol consumption). We observed this complementarity of proxy measures and original measures at capturing multiple health-related constructs when modeling from, both, brain signals and sociodemographic data. CONCLUSION: Population modeling with machine learning can derive measures of mental health from heterogeneous inputs including brain signals and questionnaire data. This may complement or even substitute for psychometric assessments in clinical populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".