Cited by 75Mental Health via WritingArtificial Intelligence in HealthcarePosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Automated assessment of patients’ self-narratives for posttraumatic stress disorder screening using natural language processing and text mining

Open access
He, Qiwei, Veldkamp, Bernard P., Glas, Cees A. W., de Vries, Theo·2017·Assessment

Abstract

Patients’ narratives about traumatic experiences and symptoms are useful in clinical screening and diagnostic procedures. In this study, we presented an automated assessment system to screen patients for posttraumatic stress disorder via a natural language processing and text-mining approach. Four machine-learning algorithms—including decision tree, naive Bayes, support vector machine, and an alternative classification approach called the product score model—were used in combination with n-gram representation models to identify patterns between verbal features in self-narratives and psychiatric diagnoses. With our sample, the product score model with unigrams attained the highest prediction accuracy when compared with practitioners’ diagnoses. The addition of multigrams contributed most to balancing the metrics of sensitivity and specificity. This article also demonstrates that text mining is a promising approach for analyzing patients’ self-expression behavior, thus helping clinicians identify potential patients from an early stage.

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 · 10.1177/1073191115602551

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • Some studies used suboptimal tools such as LIWC for POS tagging instead of more suitable alternatives like the spaCy or Stanza libraries.

    “Technology gaps were also a problem, with some studies using suboptimal tools such as LIWC for POS tagging instead of more suitable alternatives like the spaCy 86 or Stanza 89 libraries.”

    From Linguistic markers for identifying post-traumatic stress disorder and associated symptoms: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as [86]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) proposes adding grammatical properties and parts of speech in a future study, rather than reporting POS tagging in this study. The Preprocessing section describes stop-word removal and stemming, not LIWC; the paper also does not compare LIWC with spaCy or Stanza. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. [34]34. Laplace, P. S. (1995). Pierre-Simon Laplace philosophical essay on probabilities (Vol. 13). New York, NY: Springer.
  2. [48]48. Proudfoot, J., Ryden, C., Everitt, B., Shapiro, D. A., Goldberg, D., Mann, A., . . . Gray, J. A. (2004). Clinical efficacy of comput- erized cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety and depres- sion in primary care: Randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 46-54.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, Q., Veldkamp, B. P., Glas, C. A. W., & de Vries, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
Corresponding author
He, Qiwei
Venue
Assessment
Published
2016-07-28
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
157-172
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W2157394212
Cited by
74
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, screening, automated diagnosis, text mining, natural language processing, n-gram features
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Decision Trees, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Natural Language Processing, Personality Assessment, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Narration, Early Diagnosis, Data Mining, Self Report

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