Cited by 195Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Quantitative forecasting of PTSD from early trauma responses: A Machine Learning application

Open access
Galatzer-Levy, Isaac R., Karstoft, Karen-Inge, Statnikov, Alexander, Shalev, Arieh Y.·2014·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

There is broad interest in predicting the clinical course of mental disorders from early, multimodal clinical and biological information. Current computational models, however, constitute a significant barrier to realizing this goal. The early identification of trauma survivors at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is plausible given the disorder's salient onset and the abundance of putative biological and clinical risk indicators. This work evaluates the ability of Machine Learning (ML) forecasting approaches to identify and integrate a panel of unique predictive characteristics and determine their accuracy in forecasting non-remitting PTSD from information collected within 10 days of a traumatic event. Data on event characteristics, emergency department observations, and early symptoms were collected in 957 trauma survivors, followed for fifteen months. An ML feature selection algorithm identified a set of predictors that rendered all others redundant. Support Vector Machines (SVMs) as well as other ML classification algorithms were used to evaluate the forecasting accuracy of i) ML selected features, ii) all available features without selection, and iii) Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) symptoms alone. SVM also compared the prediction of a) PTSD diagnostic status at 15 months to b) posterior probability of membership in an empirically derived non-remitting PTSD symptom trajectory. Results are expressed as mean Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUC). The feature selection algorithm identified 16 predictors, present in ≥ 95% cross-validation trials. The accuracy of predicting non-remitting PTSD from that set (AUC = .77) did not differ from predicting from all available information (AUC = .78). Predicting from ASD symptoms was not better then chance (AUC = .60). The prediction of PTSD status was less accurate than that of membership in a non-remitting trajectory (AUC = .71). ML methods may fill a critical gap in forecasting PTSD. The ability to identify and integrate unique risk indicators makes this a promising approach for developing algorithms that infer probabilistic risk of chronic posttraumatic stress psychopathology based on complex sources of biological, psychological, and social information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.08.017

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spirtes P Glymour C Scheines R Causation, prediction, and search 2000 81 The MIT Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Galatzer-Levy, I. R., Karstoft, K.-I., Statnikov, A., & Shalev, A. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
59
Pages
68-76
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041674474
Cited by
195
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9
FWCI
14.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH071651, R34MH071651, K01MH102415)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD risk prediction, acute stress disorder, trauma survivors, PTSD symptom trajectories, feature selection, support vector machine, emergency department observation, risk indicators
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review