Predicting Dropout From Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Panic Disorder Using Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Attrition is an important problem in clinical practice and research. However, the predictors of dropping out from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for panic disorder (PD) are not fully understood. In this study, we aimed to build a dropout prediction model for CBT for PD using machine learning (ML) algorithms. Methods: We treated 208 patients with PD applying group CBT. From baseline data, the prediction analysis was carried out using two ML algorithms, random forest and light gradient boosting machine. The baseline data included five personality dimensions in NEO Five Factor Index, depression subscale of Symptom Checklist-90 Revised, age, sex, and Panic Disorder Severity Scale. Results: Random forest identified dropout during CBT for PD showing that the accuracy of prediction was 88%. Light gradient boosting machine showed that the accuracy was 85%. Conclusions: The ML algorithms could detect dropout after CBT for PD with relatively high accuracy. For the purpose of clinical decision-making, we could use this ML method. This study was conducted as a naturalistic study in a routine clinical setting. Therefore, our results in ML approach could be generalized to regular clinical settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".