Machine learning and natural language processing for the early detection of potential mental disorders among school-age children: a prospective birth cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early detection of childhood mental health disorders remains challenging due to gaps in current screening approaches that lack sensitivity to subtle psychological indicators and rely heavily on observable behaviors. We investigated whether integrating machine learning with natural language processing of children's written expressions could enhance early detection of potential mental disorders among school-age children. Methods: This prospective birth cohort study used National Child Development Study (NCDS) data, analyzing 8,981 children born in 1958 in the United Kingdom. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (BSAG) and Rutter A Scale at age 11, with cases defined by scores above 95th and 90th percentiles. Predictive models combined traditional risk factors with natural language features extracted from children's essays describing their imagined future at age 25. We developed eight machine learning models using various predictor combinations, evaluating performance through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values. Results: Using BSAG 95th percentile threshold, models combining top five selected variables with essay features achieved significantly higher predictive capability (ROC:0.77, 95%CI:0.71-0.83) compared to models using all variables (ROC:0.70, 95%CI:0.63-0.76) or essay features alone (ROC:0.67, 95%CI:0.60-0.74). At 90th percentile threshold, this integrated approach showed similar improvement (ROC:0.81, 95%CI:0.78-0.85). Key predictors included gestational length, maternal parity, parental age, residential characteristics, parental engagement metrics, and children's BMI. Sensitivity analyses using Rutter A Scale confirmed these findings. Conclusion: Combining machine learning with natural language processing of children's future-oriented essays offers a promising approach for early detection of childhood mental health disorders. This integrated screening method could facilitate more timely intervention, though validation in contemporary populations is needed before clinical implementation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".