Evaluating the efficacy and site-specific performance of machine learning approaches: A comprehensive review of autism detection models

Deblina Mazumder Setu , Tania Islam , Md Maklachur Rahman , Samrat Kumar Dey , Tazizur Rahman
{"title":"Evaluating the efficacy and site-specific performance of machine learning approaches: A comprehensive review of autism detection models","authors":"Deblina Mazumder Setu ,&nbsp;Tania Islam ,&nbsp;Md Maklachur Rahman ,&nbsp;Samrat Kumar Dey ,&nbsp;Tazizur Rahman","doi":"10.1016/j.fraope.2025.100275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As autism diagnoses rise globally, it is important to find a better approach for early and effective prediction. The primary objectives are to identify the models that provide the optimum balance of accuracy while taking age and data type considerations into account, as well as to identify shortcomings and recommend future directions. This study investigates the efficacy of various computational models in early autism detection, analyzing 22 distinct studies. From them, 18 studies are based on 14 popular machine learning (ML) models to identify the most effective prediction methods. And four of them are more progressive, sophisticated methods including the convolutional neural network (CNN) model, diagnostic autism spectrum disorder (DASD) strategy, Ensemble Diagnosis Methodology (EKNN), and Self-Organizing Maps (SOM). Some existing study find out that Gradient Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), DecisionTree (DT), RandomForest (RF), and Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LGB) demonstrated maximum accuracy scores of 100<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span>, while AdaBoost (AB), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) achieved accuracies of 100<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span>, 100<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span>, 96<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span>, and 96<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span>, respectively. In contrast to the most recent model, sophisticated CNN obtained 99.39<span><math><mtext>%</mtext></math></span> accuracy. For ML models, LR requires less processing time compared to others with high accuracy, making it a suitable choice for efficiency-driven applications, while CNN is optimal for neuroimaging-based autism detection. This study also suggests that the choice of model for autism prediction should be based on specific requirements of accuracy and processing time. This study contributes to the field by providing a comprehensive evaluation of current methodologies, guiding future researchers toward more precise and efficient early autism detection strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100554,"journal":{"name":"Franklin Open","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Franklin Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773186325000659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As autism diagnoses rise globally, it is important to find a better approach for early and effective prediction. The primary objectives are to identify the models that provide the optimum balance of accuracy while taking age and data type considerations into account, as well as to identify shortcomings and recommend future directions. This study investigates the efficacy of various computational models in early autism detection, analyzing 22 distinct studies. From them, 18 studies are based on 14 popular machine learning (ML) models to identify the most effective prediction methods. And four of them are more progressive, sophisticated methods including the convolutional neural network (CNN) model, diagnostic autism spectrum disorder (DASD) strategy, Ensemble Diagnosis Methodology (EKNN), and Self-Organizing Maps (SOM). Some existing study find out that Gradient Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), DecisionTree (DT), RandomForest (RF), and Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LGB) demonstrated maximum accuracy scores of 100%, while AdaBoost (AB), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) achieved accuracies of 100%, 100%, 96%, and 96%, respectively. In contrast to the most recent model, sophisticated CNN obtained 99.39% accuracy. For ML models, LR requires less processing time compared to others with high accuracy, making it a suitable choice for efficiency-driven applications, while CNN is optimal for neuroimaging-based autism detection. This study also suggests that the choice of model for autism prediction should be based on specific requirements of accuracy and processing time. This study contributes to the field by providing a comprehensive evaluation of current methodologies, guiding future researchers toward more precise and efficient early autism detection strategies.
评估机器学习方法的有效性和特定部位的性能:自闭症检测模型的全面回顾
随着自闭症诊断在全球范围内的上升,找到一种更好的早期有效预测方法是很重要的。主要目标是确定在考虑年龄和数据类型的同时提供准确性最佳平衡的模型,以及确定缺点并建议未来的方向。本研究调查了各种计算模型在早期自闭症检测中的功效,分析了22个不同的研究。其中,18项研究基于14种流行的机器学习(ML)模型,以确定最有效的预测方法。其中四个是更先进、更复杂的方法,包括卷积神经网络(CNN)模型、诊断自闭症谱系障碍(DASD)策略、集成诊断方法(EKNN)和自组织地图(SOM)。已有研究发现,Gradient Boosting、Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)、DecisionTree (DT)、RandomForest (RF)和Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LGB)的准确率最高可达100%,而AdaBoost (AB)、Logistic Regression (LR)、Support Vector Machine (SVM)和RandomForest (RF)的准确率分别为100%、100%、96%和96%。与最新的模型相比,复杂的CNN获得了99.39%的准确率。对于ML模型来说,LR比其他模型需要更少的处理时间,具有更高的准确性,使其成为效率驱动应用的合适选择,而CNN则是基于神经成像的自闭症检测的最佳选择。本研究还提示自闭症预测模型的选择应基于特定的准确性和处理时间要求。该研究通过对现有方法进行全面评估,为该领域做出贡献,指导未来的研究人员制定更精确、更有效的早期自闭症检测策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信