Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How predictable are symptoms in psychopathological networks? A reanalysis of 18 published datasets

Open access
Haslbeck, J. M. B., Fried, E. I.·2017·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Network analyses on psychopathological data focus on the network structure and its derivatives such as node centrality. One conclusion one can draw from centrality measures is that the node with the highest centrality is likely to be the node that is determined most by its neighboring nodes. However, centrality is a relative measure: knowing that a node is highly central gives no information about the extent to which it is determined by its neighbors. Here we provide an absolute measure of determination (or controllability) of a node – its predictability. We introduce predictability, estimate the predictability of all nodes in 18 prior empirical network papers on psychopathology, and statistically relate it to centrality. Methods: We carried out a literature review and collected 25 datasets from 18 published papers in the field (several mood and anxiety disorders, substance abuse, psychosis, autism, and transdiagnostic data). We fit state-of-the-art network models to all datasets, and computed the predictability of all nodes. Results: Predictability was unrelated to sample size, moderately high in most symptom networks, and differed considerable both within and between datasets. Predictability was higher in community than clinical samples, highest for mood and anxiety disorders, and lowest for psychosis. Conclusions: Predictability is an important additional characterization of symptom networks because it gives an absolute measure of the controllability of each node. It allows conclusions about how self-determined a symptom network is, and may help to inform intervention strategies. Limitations of predictability along with future directions are discussed.

Overview

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 · 10.1017/s0033291717001258

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Carr, 2005, Spousal Bereavement in Late Life
  2. Haslbeck J , Waldorp LJ (2015). Structure estimation for mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.05677. · arXiv
  3. Haslbeck JMB , Waldorp LJ (2016 b). mgm: structure estimation for time-varying mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data. arXiv preprint, page. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.06871. · arXiv

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Fried, E. I.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2017-06-19
Volume
47
Issue
16
Pages
2767-2776
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2618202739
Cited by
429
References
39
FWCI
32.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How predictable are symptoms in psychopathological networks? A reanalysis of 18 published datasets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291717001258
The paper
Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Fried, E. I. (2017). How predictable are symptoms in psychopathological networks? A reanalysis of 18 published datasets. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291717001258

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.