The physical, social, and mental conditions of machine learning in student health evaluation

Gulnur Tyulepberdinova, Мадина Мансурова, Talshyn Sarsembayeva, Sulu Issabayeva, Darazha Issabayeva

2024

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1111/jcal.12999
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Abstract Background This study aims to assess how well several machine learning (ML) algorithms predict the physical, social, and mental health condition of university students. Objectives The physical health measurements used in the study include BMI (Body Mass Index), %BF (percentage of Body Fat), BSC (Blood Serum Cholesterol), SBP (Systolic Blood Pressure), and DBP (Diastolic Blood Pressure). Methods The mental health evaluation relied on the following methods: PHQ‐9 (Patient Health Questionnaire‐9), ISI (Insomnia Severity Index), GAD‐7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale), and SBQ‐R (Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire‐Revised). The study assessed KEYES, the comprehensive social health indicator. The study uses a famous methodology for training and testing four well‐known ML algorithms, namely the K‐nearest neighbors algorithm, decision trees, Naïve Bayes, and the random forest algorithm. Results and Conclusions The recall value of the RF algorithm is higher by 2.0%, 4.15%, and 11.25%, respectively. The F‐score value of the RF algorithm is also the highest. The differences amount to 4.56% (Naïve Bayes), 2.50% (DT), and 11.20% (K‐NN). Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F‐score were used to assess the researched ML algorithms' prediction ability. With a 99.40% prediction accuracy, a 97.60% precision, a 99.30% recall, and an F‐score value of 98.70%, the Random Forest method performed the best. ML algorithms can serve as tools for the prediction of physical, mental, and social health state of patients, including students, but they have a rather narrow scope of application and do not cover all aspects of health.