12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Evidence-Based Assessment From Simple Clinical Judgments to Statistical Learning: Evaluating a Range of Options Using Pediatric Bipolar Disorder as a Diagnostic Challenge

      1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 3
      Clinical Psychological Science
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Reliability of clinical diagnoses is often low. There are many algorithms that could improve diagnostic accuracy, and statistical learning is becoming popular. Using pediatric bipolar disorder as a clinically challenging example, we evaluated a series of increasingly complex models ranging from simple screening to a supervised LASSO regression in a large ( <i>N</i>=550) academic clinic sample. We then externally validated models in a community clinic ( <i>N</i>=511) with the same candidate predictors and semi-structured interview diagnoses, providing high methodological consistency; the clinics also had substantially different demography and referral patterns. Models performed well according to internal validation metrics. Complex models degraded rapidly when externally validated. Naïve Bayesian and logistic models concentrating on predictors identified in prior meta-analyses tied or bettered LASSO models when externally validated. Implementing these methods would improve clinical diagnostic performance. Statistical learning research should continue to invest in high quality indicators and diagnoses to supervise model training. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis.

            The process of making judgments and decisions requires a method for combining data. To compare the accuracy of clinical and mechanical (formal, statistical) data-combination techniques, we performed a meta-analysis on studies of human health and behavior. On average, mechanical-prediction techniques were about 10% more accurate than clinical predictions. Depending on the specific analysis, mechanical prediction substantially outperformed clinical prediction in 33%-47% of studies examined. Although clinical predictions were often as accurate as mechanical predictions, in only a few studies (6%-16%) were they substantially more accurate. Superiority for mechanical-prediction techniques was consistent, regardless of the judgment task, type of judges, judges' amounts of experience, or the types of data being combined. Clinical predictions performed relatively less well when predictors included clinical interview data. These data indicate that mechanical predictions of human behaviors are equal or superior to clinical prediction methods for a wide range of circumstances.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.

              Paul Meehl (1954)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Psychological Science
                Clinical Psychological Science
                SAGE Publications
                2167-7026
                2167-7034
                July 27 2017
                March 2018
                December 08 2017
                March 2018
                : 6
                : 2
                : 243-265
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
                Article
                10.1177/2167702617741845
                6152934
                30263876
                6fb25419-f2f1-4641-916e-6526cc233af6
                © 2018

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article