ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Response-time process signals for selective escalation in reduced-item mental health symptom screening.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.