Evaluating Machine Learning Stability in Predicting Depression and Anxiety Amidst Subjective Response Errors

Abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) exert significant burdens on individuals and society, underscoring the importance of accurate predictions using advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) and survey data, these algorithms offer potential in forecasting such mental health conditions. Yet, the precision of these predictions can be compromised by biases or inaccuracies inherent in subjective survey responses.
 
 In this research, we assess the reliability of four prominent ML algorithms—Random Forest, XGBoost, Logistic Regression, and Naïve Bayesian—in predicting MDD and GAD. Our dataset encompasses a rich array of information, from biomedical metrics and demographic details to self-reported survey insights. A focal point of our investigation is the algorithms' performance under scenarios with varying degrees of subjective response inaccuracies, such as memory recall biases or subjective interpretation. Our findings reveal that while all algorithms exhibit commendable accuracy with pristine survey data, their performance diverges when faced with erroneous or biased responses. Notably, XGBoost remains stable and excels in identifying true positive cases, even in the presence of such noise.
 
 These observations underscore the criticality of algorithmic resilience in mental health prediction, especially when relying on subjective data. The robustness of certain algorithms to noisy inputs positions them as more reliable choices for predicting mental health conditions based on self-reported data, emphasizing the need for careful algorithm selection in such contexts.