MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403409711 · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-06152-w

How accurately can supervised machine learning model predict a targeted psychiatric disorder?

2024· article· en· W4403409711 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Haitham Jahrami, Amir H. Pakpour, Waqar Husain, Achraf Ammar, Zahra Saif, Ali Alsalman, Adel Aloffi, Khaled Trabelsi, Seithikurippu R. Pandi‐Perumal, Michael V. Vitiello

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMachine learningPsychologyPsychiatryArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hoarding disorder (HD) is characterized by a compulsion to collect belongings, and to experience significant distress when parting from them. HD is often misdiagnosed for several reasons. These include patient and family lack of recognition that it is a psychiatric disorder and professionals' lack of relevant expertise with it. This study evaluates the ability of a supervised machine learning (ML) model to match the diagnostic skills of psychiatrists when presented with equivalent information pertinent to symptoms of HD. METHODS: Five hundred online participants were randomly recruited and completed the Hoarding Rating Scale-Self Report (HRS-SR) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale. Responses to the questionnaires were read by an ML model. Responses to the HRS-SR were then converted into anonymized, random-equivalent texts. Each of these individual texts was presented in random order to two experienced psychiatrists who were independently asked for a provisional diagnosis - e.g.; the presence or absence of HD. In case of disagreement between the two assessors, a third psychiatrist broke the tie. A decision tree classification model was employed to predict clinical HD using self-report data from two psychological tests, the HRS-SR and GAD-7. The target variable was whether a participant had clinical HD, while the predictive variables were the continuous scores from the HRS-SR and GAD-7 tests. The model's performance was evaluated using a confusion matrix, which compared the observed diagnoses with the predicted diagnoses to assess accuracy. RESULTS: According to the psychiatrists, approximately 10% of the participants fulfilled DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for HD. 93% of the clinician-identified cases were identified by the ML model based on HRS-SR and GAD-7 scores. A decision tree plot model demonstrated that about 60% of the cases could be detected by the HRS-SR alone while the rest required a combination of HRS-SR and GAD-7 scores. ML evaluation metrics showed satisfactory performance, with a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 55%; Area Under Curve (AUC), 79%; a Negative Predictive Value of 76%; and a False Negative Rate of 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings strongly suggest that ML can, in the future, play a significant role in the risk assessment of psychiatric disorders prior to face-to-face consultation. By using AI to scan big data questionnaire responses, wait time for seriously ill patients can be substantially cut, and prognoses substantially improved.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207