ArticleBMC psychology2025
Enhancing happiness and life satisfaction in university students: analysis with a machine learning approach.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubjective well-being (SWB) is vital for the personal growth of university students. Machine learning approach have been increasingly used in identifying SWB predictors for their ability to capture complex and multidimensional predictors. Still, the feature selection is not often justified from a theoretical perspective.
objectiveUnder the guidance of the conceptual model of psychology and public health, this study aims to apply machine learning to identify the top predictors of happiness and life satisfaction (LS) as the two components of SWB among a sample of university students.
methodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed university students from the China Family Panel Studies, including 816 participants from the 2022 wave for model development and 724 from the 2020 wave for external validation. The development set was randomly split into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%). Forty-two variables across the conceptual model of psychology and public health were included. Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation, LASSO regression was used for feature selection, and SMOTE-IPF addressed class imbalance. Five tree-based machine learning models (Random Forest, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, and LightGBM) were trained with 10-fold cross-validation, and the best model was chosen according to cross-validated AUC. Performance was further evaluated in the internal test and external validation sets using ROC and PR curves, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and other metrics. The model explanation was enhanced with SHAP values to assess the detailed contribution of each predictor and Venn diagrams to evaluate shared predictors of happiness and LS.
resultsAmong 816 university students, 15.9% reported low happiness and 28.9% reported low LS in the development set, with similar proportions observed in the external validation set. The Random Forest model achieved the best performance for happiness prediction (AUC = 0.831 in the test set and 0.741 in the external validation set), while XGBoost performed best for LS (AUC = 0.730 and 0.748, respectively). SHAP analysis revealed interpersonal relationships were the strongest predictor of happiness, while future confidence was the top predictor of LS. Shared predictors across both outcomes included future confidence, interpersonal relationships, depressive symptoms, and the relationship with mother.
conclusionsThe machine learning approach demonstrates good predictive performance, thus may offer new thoughts for supporting SWB among university students, such as strengthening interpersonal relationships and fostering future confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.