Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 22;11(1):31. doi: 10.1007/s13755-023-00232-z

Table 1.

Summaries of the methods and outcomes of previous literature reviews

Method/classifier Dataset Performance metric References
ADHD detection
Support vector Machine 50 individuals of 10–12 aged school children in Chile with their oculometry data (such as, gaze position, blink frequency and pupil size) from 22 custom engineered features 75% accuracy, 77% sensitivity and 74% specificity [10]
Linear discriminant analysis 5726 college students 93.1% accuracy [11]
Support Vector Machine 150 individuals from the national institutes in Boston, USA 96.5% accuracy [12]
Support Vector Machine 36 ADHD and 35 normal cases of a private dataset 74.65% accuracy, 75% sensitivity and 74.29% specificity [13]
Single-channel deep neural network Multiscale brain connectome data and personal characteristic data of 973 participants from Neuro Bureau ADHD-200 dataset 82% AUC [14]
Support Vector Machine with Recursive Feature Elimination 159 structural MRI images of children from Neuro Bureau ADHD-200 dataset 60.78% accuracy [15]
Extreme learning machine 776 individuals from 7 to 14 years with their structural MRI data from Neuro Bureau ADHD-200 dataset 76.19% accuracy [16]
Support Vector Machine 973 participants including ADHD patients and healthy controls from Neuro Bureau ADHD-200 dataset 75% accuracy [17]
Boruta based feature selection and support vector machine for identification Comorbidity-free ADHD individuals with covariable-matched healthy children aged 9–10 chosen from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study 64.3% accuracy and 69.8% AUC [18]
Support vector machine fMRI scan and phenotypic data (age, gender, handedness, IQ, and site of scanning) of 668 participants from the ADHD-200 dataset 76% accuracy on 2 class and 68.6% on 3 class accuracy [19]
Novel Knowledge Distillation-Based Feature Selection based on neural network 776 training and 197 testing cases from the ADHD-200 dataset Average 75% accuracy on different sites [20]
Linear support vector machine ADHD-200 data set rom Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), NeuroImage (NI), New York University Medical Center (NYU) and Peking University (Peking) 56–81% accuracy on different dataset [21]
Support vector machine-recursive feature elimination 83 boys aged 7–15 with ADHD, 86 boys with ASD, 125 boys with typical development 79.3% accuracy [22]
OCD detection
Logistic regression in neural network 47 children and adolescents with OCD and 17 children and adolescents without a psychiatric diagnosis, aged 8–17 years 89% accuracy, 78% sensitivity, 86% specificity, and an 89% AUC score [23]
Gradient enhanced decision trees 215 observations and 227 features AUROC score of 78.2%, sensitivity of 73.42%, and specificity of 71.45% [24]
Random Forest 533 participants of a specialised outpatient clinic 65% accuracy [25]
Random Forest 61 adolescents with 46 demographic and clinical baseline variables by Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Research Centre in Stockholm, Sweden 83% accuracy [26]
Support Vector Machine 68 drug naïve OCD patients of Chinese Han nationality 72% accuracy [27]
Ensemble method 330 Iranian patients with 36 features 86% accuracy [28]
Support Vector Machine 296 individuals using 24 baseline variables 75.4% accuracy [29]
Support Vector Machine 54 drug naïve Chinese OCD patients with 6 motion parameters Accuracy 95.37%, sensitivity 96.30%, and specificity 94.44%, [30]
SAD detection
Alternating decision trees Children aged 2–5 who visited Duke University Paediatric Primary Care Clinics 96% accuracy [31]