Predicting adolescent psychopathology from early life factors: A machine learning tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The successful implementation and interpretation of machine learning (ML) models in epidemiological studies can be challenging without an extensive programming background. We provide a didactic example of machine learning for risk prediction in this study by determining whether early life factors could be useful for predicting adolescent psychopathology. In total, 9643 adolescents ages 9–10 from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study were included in ML analysis to predict high Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) scores (i.e., t-scores ≥ 60). ML models were constructed using a series of predictor combinations (prenatal, family history, sociodemographic) across 5 different algorithms. We assessed ML performance through sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC) metrics. A total of 1267 adolescents (13.1 %) were found to have high CBCL scores. The best performing algorithms were elastic net and gradient boosted trees. The best performing elastic net models included prenatal and family history factors (Sensitivity 0.654, Specificity 0.713; AUC 0.742, F1-score 0.401) and prenatal, family, history, and sociodemographic factors (Sensitivity 0.668, Specificity 0.704; AUC 0.745, F1-score 0.402). Across all 5 ML algorithms, family history factors (e.g., either parent had nervous breakdowns, trouble holding jobs/fights/police encounters, and counseling for mental issues) and sociodemographic covariates (e.g., maternal age, child's sex, caregiver income and caregiver education) tended to be better predictors of adolescent psychopathology. The most important prenatal predictors were unplanned pregnancy, birth complications, and pregnancy complications. Our results suggest that inclusion of prenatal, family history, and sociodemographic factors in ML models can generate moderately accurate predictions of adolescent psychopathology. Issues associated with model overfitting, hyperparameter tuning, and system seed setting should be considered throughout model training, testing, and validation. Future early risk predictions models may improve with the inclusion of additional relevant covariates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".