IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0324673.html

Comparing machine and deep learning models for pediatric anxiety classification using structured EHRs and area-based measures of health data

Author

Listed:
  • Eric W Lee
  • Sanghyun Choo
  • Dakotah Maguire
  • Abhishek Shivanna
  • Daniel Santel
  • Surbhi Bhatnagar
  • Ian Goethert
  • Kelly Patterson
  • Jay Gholap
  • Heidi A Hanson
  • Mayanka Chandrashekar
  • Robert T Ammerman
  • John P Pestian
  • Tracy Glauser
  • Cole Brokamp
  • Jeffrey R Strawn
  • Anuj J Kapadia
  • Greeshma Agasthya

Abstract

Objective: This retrospective, case-control study with internal validation evaluates the performance of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models in classifying pediatric patients at risk for anxiety disorders using structured electronic health records (EHRs) and area-based measures of health (ABMH). The aim is to enable proactive care by monitoring potential anxiety onset across developmental stages. Methods: We trained a series of ML models (Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, XGBoost) and DL models (LSTM, GRU, RETAIN, Dipole) using structured EHR data from 30-day windows prior to diagnosis. Two datasets were used per age group: one with structured EHR data only, and another including both EHR and ABMH data. ML models were trained using short-term cross-sectional features, while DL models leveraged full longitudinal patient histories. Performance was assessed using AUROC, AUPRC, PPV, NPV, F1 score, and accuracy. Due to differences in input scope, model performance reflects both algorithmic and temporal design differences and is not intended as a direct comparison between ML and DL. Results: ML models offered strong baseline performance, with XGBoost achieving AUROC scores of 0.817 (EHR) and 0.816 (EHR+ABMH) for 8-year-olds. Adding ABMH features did not significantly improve performance. DL models, particularly RETAIN and Dipole, achieved the highest AUROC values (e.g., Dipole: 0.853 with EHR, 0.857 with EHR+ABMH for 8-year-olds), outperforming other DL and ML models within their respective design constraints. Conclusion: Both ML and DL models successfully identified likely anxiety onset using structured EHR data. DL models using longitudinal data achieved the highest performance, while XGBoost provided a robust ML baseline. The minimal impact of ABMH features highlights integration challenges, and performance variation across ages emphasizes the need for age-stratified modeling approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric W Lee & Sanghyun Choo & Dakotah Maguire & Abhishek Shivanna & Daniel Santel & Surbhi Bhatnagar & Ian Goethert & Kelly Patterson & Jay Gholap & Heidi A Hanson & Mayanka Chandrashekar & Robert T Am, 2026. "Comparing machine and deep learning models for pediatric anxiety classification using structured EHRs and area-based measures of health data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324673
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324673
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324673
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324673&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0324673?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324673. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.