Single classifier vs. ensemble machine learning approaches for mental health prediction

被引:24
作者
Chung, Jetli [1 ]
Teo, Jason [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malaysia Sabah, Fac Comp & Informat, Jalan UMS, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Sabah, Malaysia
[2] Univ Malaysia Sabah, Fac Comp & Informat, Adv Machine Intelligence Res Grp, Jalan UMS, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Sabah, Malaysia
[3] Univ Malaysia Sabah, Fac Comp & Informat, Evolutionary Comp Lab, Jalan UMS, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Sabah, Malaysia
关键词
DEPRESSION;
D O I
10.1186/s40708-022-00180-6
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Early prediction of mental health issues among individuals is paramount for early diagnosis and treatment by mental health professionals. One of the promising approaches to achieving fully automated computer-based approaches for predicting mental health problems is via machine learning. As such, this study aims to empirically evaluate several popular machine learning algorithms in classifying and predicting mental health problems based on a given data set, both from a single classifier approach as well as an ensemble machine learning approach. The data set contains responses to a survey questionnaire that was conducted by Open Sourcing Mental Illness (OSMI). Machine learning algorithms investigated in this study include Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, Neural Networks, K-Nearest Neighbours, and Support Vector Machine, as well as an ensemble approach using these algorithms. Comparisons were also made against more recent machine learning approaches, namely Extreme Gradient Boosting and Deep Neural Networks. Overall, Gradient Boosting achieved the highest overall accuracy of 88.80% followed by Neural Networks with 88.00%. This was followed by Extreme Gradient Boosting and Deep Neural Networks at 87.20% and 86.40%, respectively. The ensemble classifier achieved 85.60% while the remaining classifiers achieved between 82.40 and 84.00%. The findings indicate that Gradient Boosting provided the highest classification accuracy for this particular mental health bi-classification prediction task. In general, it was also demonstrated that the prediction results produced by all of the machine learning approaches studied here were able to achieve more than 80% accuracy, thereby indicating a highly promising approach for mental health professionals toward automated clinical diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Bouckaert R.R., 2003, P 20 INT C MACHINE L, P51
[2]   Cross-trial prediction of treatment outcome in depression: a machine learning approach [J].
Chekroud, Adam Mourad ;
Zotti, Ryan Joseph ;
Shehzad, Zarrar ;
Gueorguieva, Ralitza ;
Johnson, Marcia K. ;
Trivedi, Madhukar H. ;
Cannon, Tyrone D. ;
Krystal, John Harrison ;
Corlett, Philip Robert .
LANCET PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 3 (03) :243-250
[3]   Utilization of machine learning for prediction of post-traumatic stress: a re-examination of cortisol in the prediction and pathways to non-remitting PTSD [J].
Galatzer-Levy, I. R. ;
Ma, S. ;
Statnikov, A. ;
Yehuda, R. ;
Shalev, A. Y. .
TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY, 2017, 7 :e1070-e1070
[4]  
Geng XF, 2017, DESTECH TRANS COMP, P146
[5]  
Gitte V, 2012, On estimating model accuracy with repeated cross-validation, P39
[6]   Diagnosing schizophrenia with network analysis and a machine learning method [J].
Jo, Young Tak ;
Joo, Sung Woo ;
Shon, Seung-Hyun ;
Kim, Harin ;
Kim, Yangsik ;
Lee, Jungsun .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, 2020, 29 (01)
[7]   Estimating classification error rate: Repeated cross-validation, repeated hold-out and bootstrap [J].
Kim, Ji-Hyun .
COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2009, 53 (11) :3735-3745
[8]  
Liu YS, 2021, Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, V6, P100215, DOI [10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100215, 10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100215, DOI 10.1016/J.JADR.2021.100215]
[9]  
Mohan Y, 2016, IEEE EMBS CONF BIO, P286, DOI 10.1109/IECBES.2016.7843459
[10]   Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods [J].
Molinaro, AM ;
Simon, R ;
Pfeiffer, RM .
BIOINFORMATICS, 2005, 21 (15) :3301-3307