Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712583›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Response-time process signals for selective escalation in reduced-item mental health symptom screening.

Zidong Zhou, Cheng Liu, Xuanhe Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zidong ZhouSchool of Digital Arts, Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Commerce, Nanjing, China.
Cheng LiuSchool of Digital Business, Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Commerce, Nanjing, China.
Xuanhe WangSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Reduced-item mental health symptom questionnaires can reduce respondent burden in large-scale screening, but some provisional results may still require confirmation through completion of the remaining items. We examined whether item-level response time (RT) could improve selective escalation after a 19-item screen. Methods: Using fixed-order data from 24,292 students who completed the PHQ-9, GAD-7, PSS-14, and ISI with item-level RTs, we conducted an offline participant-specific adaptive replay. Complete-questionnaire score categories served as the reference for evaluating the provisional categories issued after the 19-item screen. Results: Although RT did not materially improve overall score-category classification, it improved the prioritization of provisional decisions at risk of high-confidence disagreement (HCD) with complete-questionnaire categories. RT-based calibration also modestly reduced calibration error relative to the response-only kernel baseline, while standard isotonic calibration performed best. Among 14,576 scale-level test decisions, 579 met the operational definition of HCD. The confidence-plus-RT model achieved an average precision of 0.772, compared with 0.540 for the confidence-only model and 0.491 for the shuffled-RT control. At a 5% participant-escalation capacity, the confidence-plus-RT model captured 30.6% of HCD decisions, compared with 15.2% using confidence alone; at 10% capacity, the corresponding capture rates were 56.1% and 32.8%. These capacities corresponded to average questionnaire burdens of 19.9 and 20.8 items per participant, respectively, compared with 37 items under universal completion. The HCD-ranking advantage was observed across alternative confidence thresholds and item-selection designs, with the largest gain for PSS-14. Discussion: The results show that RT can serve as a complementary response-process signal for directing limited full-questionnaire completion capacity toward provisional decisions with the highest estimated HCD risk. Prospective, questionnaire-specific studies should evaluate this workflow in independent samples and live screening settings.

Indexed as

high-confidence disagreementmental health screeningquestionnaire score categoriesreduced-item assessmentresponse-process evidenceresponse timeselective escalationselective prediction

Identifiers

PMID42712583
PMCPMC13550221

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.