Systematic review of machine learning in PTSD studies for automated diagnosis evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is frequently underdiagnosed due to its clinical and biological heterogeneity. Worldwide, many people face barriers to accessing accurate and timely diagnoses. Machine learning (ML) techniques have been utilized for early assessments and outcome prediction to address these challenges. This paper aims to conduct a systematic review to investigate if ML is a promising approach for PTSD diagnosis. In this review, statistical methods were employed to synthesize the outcomes of the included research and provide guidance on critical considerations for ML task implementation. These included (a) selection of the most appropriate ML model for the available dataset, (b) identification of optimal ML features based on the chosen diagnostic method, (c) determination of appropriate sample size based on the distribution of the data, and (d) implementation of suitable validation tools to assess the performance of the selected ML models. We screened 3186 studies and included 41 articles based on eligibility criteria in the final synthesis. Here we report that the analysis of the included studies highlights the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in PTSD diagnosis. However, implementing AI-based diagnostic systems in real clinical settings requires addressing several limitations, including appropriate regulation, ethical considerations, and protection of patient privacy.
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 | 0.023 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".