Nested cross-validation reveals a framework for predicting depression risk from social media, indicating improved interpretability for mental health applications.
Social media behavior is a promising source of early indicators for psychological distress; however, predictive models often lack transparency, limiting their adoption in mental health settings. This paper describes an explainable machine learning framework for predicting self-reported depression risk based on behavioral features collected from 481 anonymized social media users. Three supervised learning models were tested using a nested 5 × 5 cross-validation strategy, with Random Forest yielding the strongest performance (accuracy = 84.2%, AUC = 0.88). Model calibration analysis using reliability curves and Expected Calibration Error (ECE) demonstrated that Random Forest provides well-calibrated probability estimates suitable for binary High/Low risk assessment. Explainability was integrated using SHAP to identify key behavioral markers, including screen time, passive scrolling, nighttime usage, and stress-driven engagement. Stability testing across multiple random seeds revealed consistent feature ranking patterns, supporting the reliability of the explanations. To showcase real-world applicability, we outline a prototype XAI-driven digital intervention workflow and present a simulation across representative user profiles, illustrating how interpreted model outputs can inform personalized behavioral recommendations. However, generalizability is limited by a moderately sized dataset reliant on self-reported measures and cross-sectional design. Future work will integrate multimodal behavioral signals, larger cohorts, and clinically validated mental-health assessments. Overall, the study presents a more transparent, computationally grounded approach for interpretable depression-risk prediction from social media behavior, bridging the gap between predictive performance and practical explainability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamba et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: