Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Textual forma mentis networks bridge language structure, emotional content and psychopathology levels in adolescents

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Textual forma mentis networks predict adolescent psychopathology levels from emotionally charged interview transcripts.

desk verdict Interesting exploratory associations between language-network features and adolescent psychopathology, but the 'prediction' claim is unsupported by an analysis that explicitly avoids out-of-sample testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06387 v1 pith:VGT6O425 submitted 2025-05-09 cs.CY

Alexis Carrillo , Simon Friedrich Roske , Rebeca Ianov-Vitanov , Enrico Perinelli , Alessandro Grecucci , Massimo Stella This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords textualformamentisnetworkscognitivenetworksciencepsychopathologypredictionadolescentmentalhealthexplainableAISHAPnaturallanguageprocessingemotionprofiling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the structure and emotional tone of an adolescent's spoken language carry measurable information about their psychopathology levels. Using transcripts of 232 short emotion-eliciting interviews, the authors construct textual forma mentis networks (TFMNs), networks in which words are connected when a parser finds syntactic dependencies, synonyms, or emotional associations between them. Network features plus emotion z-scores feed Random Forest and Gradient Boosting regression models, which reach significant Pearson correlations of r = 0.37 for social maladjustment, r = 0.33 for specific internalising behaviours, and r = 0.34 for neurodevelopmental risk. The authors frame the result as evidence about patterns in this dataset rather than as a validated clinical predictor. If the claim holds, language-derived network structure becomes an interpretable window into adolescent mental health.

What carries the argument

The central object is the textual forma mentis network (TFMN), a cognitive network in which nodes are words or concepts from a transcript and edges connect words that are syntactically dependent within a sentence, extended by synonym links and annotated with emotion scores. Edges are drawn between non-stopwords whose syntactic distance in the dependency parse is at most k = 4, which captures about 94% of short-distance syntactic relations in these transcripts. Network measures such as degree, core structure, clustering, path lengths, centrality, modularity, global and local efficiency, together with emotion z-scores, become the feature set; Random Forest and gradient-boosting regressions model three latent psychopathology factors, and SHAP values, a game-theoretic explanation method, attribute each prediction to individual features.

What would settle it

Retrain the same regression pipeline on the 232 interviews and evaluate it on a held-out sample of new adolescent interviews with the same protocol, or on participants excluded from the original selection: if the correlation between predicted and observed factor scores drops to zero or becomes negative, the central claim that TFMN features predict psychopathology is unsupported. A cheaper check is nested cross-validation with feature selection applied only inside each training fold; the r ≈ 0.33–0.37 values would need to survive that re-evaluation to support the predictive reading.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Textual forma mentis networks can successfully predict psychometric levels of psychopathology in adolescents based on transcripts of emotionally charged interviews. The central finding is that combinations of semantic/syntactic network features and emotional profiles outperform either alone, and that the model's decisions are interpretable: higher modularity and a pronounced core–periphery structure predict higher social maladjustment; higher betweenness centrality with stronger disgust predicts higher internalising scores; lower local efficiency predicts higher neurodevelopmental risk. A permutation test with shuffled target variables removes the correlations, supporting the claim that real structure, not chance, drives the associations. Because the evaluation uses four-fold cross-validation on the same 232-participant dataset, the paper presents the result as evidence about structure in these data rather than as a validated predictor for new individuals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that correlations found by fitting models to the same 232 interviews, with choices like the syntactic-distance cutoff made from that same data, reflect a real link between language and psychopathology rather than patterns specific to this one group, an assumption the authors explicitly did not test since they say they had no interest in predicting unseen data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reproducibility of TFMN features makes language a candidate transdiagnostic marker for adolescent mental-health screening.
  • The SHAP patterns generate concrete, testable hypotheses: tightly clustered conversation topics go with social maladjustment, repeated bridge concepts and disgust go with internalising tendencies, and weakly integrated concepts go with neurodevelopmental risk.
  • Combined structural and emotional features should be preferred over word-count or emotion-only baselines in future language-based mental-health studies.
  • The same pipeline can be reapplied to larger interview datasets, where nested cross-validation would test true out-of-sample prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would be whether the same k = 4 TFMN features trained on one interview protocol transfer to a different protocol or age band; the paper's own reading suggests this is unknown.
  • Because the authors state they had no interest in predicting unseen data, the reported r values are likely upper bounds; with feature selection inside the loop, more conservative estimates would probably be lower.
  • If disgust-driven betweenness is truly a rumination signature, then interventions that shift conversational focus should lower both disgust expression and the betweenness bottleneck in follow-up transcripts.
  • Since modularity reflects topic separation, the social-maladjustment result could be checked against human topic annotations, linking network modularity to independently rated conversational coherence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework based on textual forma mentis networks (TFMNs) to predict three psychopathology factor scores—social maladjustment, specific internalising behaviors, and neurodevelopmental risk—in 232 adolescents from the Healthy Brain Network. Network features and emotion z-scores are extracted from transcripts of emotionally charged interviews and fed into Random Forest and Gradient Boosting regressions, evaluated with four-fold cross-validation. The authors report significant correlations (r = 0.37, 0.33, 0.34) and use SHAP values to interpret feature contributions. The central conclusion is that TFMNs 'can successfully predict psychometric levels of psychopathology in adolescents based on transcripts of emotionally charged interviews.'

Significance. If the predictive claim were supported, the paper would offer a novel, interpretable language-based marker for adolescent mental health, with concrete network features (modularity, core-periphery structure, centrality) and emotion scores linked to distinct psychopathology dimensions. The use of independent parent-report questionnaires as targets is a clear strength, and the SHAP analysis provides falsifiable, feature-level associations. However, the reported evidence does not establish out-of-sample prediction, and the authors explicitly disclaim interest in predicting unseen data. As currently presented, the contribution is best characterized as an exploratory association study, which is substantially weaker than the stated predictive claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Conclusions; Discussion (Limitations)] The Conclusions state that 'TFMNs can successfully predict psychometric levels of psychopathology in adolescents,' but the Limitations section states that cross-validation was used on the whole dataset and that the authors had 'a general lack of interest in predictability of unseen data.' These statements are directly contradictory. Four-fold cross-validation on the same 232 transcripts, with no held-out sample or nested procedure, does not support a claim of successful prediction. This is the central claim of the paper, and it is unsupported by the reported analysis.
  2. [Methods - Machine Learning Models; Methods - Explainable AI and feature contribution analysis] Feature selection and hyperparameter tuning are not nested within the cross-validation procedure. The Methods describe features ranked by SHAP and discarded if reshuffling does not deteriorate performance 'during training/validation,' and grid search is used for hyperparameters, but no nested loop or independent validation set is described. If feature selection or hyperparameter selection uses any of the data that also contribute to the cross-validated r values in Table 2, those correlations are optimistically biased. The authors must clarify the exact procedure and, if necessary, re-run the analysis with fully nested cross-validation or an external hold-out set.
  3. [Results - Table 5] The 'permutation test' reports a single random shuffle of the target variable, not a null distribution over many shuffles. The p-values in Table 5 (e.g., p = 0.25, p = 0.10) are not permutation-based p-values; they appear to be ordinary significance tests applied to one shuffled dataset. A valid permutation test requires repeating the shuffle many times and comparing the observed performance to the resulting null distribution. As reported, this analysis does not support the claim that the observed results are 'unlikely due to chance.'
  4. [Methods - Transforming texts in textual forma mentis networks] The syntactic distance parameter k=4 is selected from the cumulative distribution function of syntactic distances in the same interview transcripts. This data-dependent choice, combined with feature selection and hyperparameter tuning on the same corpus, means that the p-values reported alongside the cross-validated correlations are not valid frequentist inferences for generalizable prediction. The authors should either provide an honest out-of-sample evaluation or explicitly reframe the claims as descriptive associations and remove 'predict' language from the title, abstract, and conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Results - Machine learning models] The abstract and the Results use 'XGBoost' while the Methods consistently refer to a Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM); please standardize the terminology throughout.
  2. [Methods - Emotional Profiling and Emotion Quantification] The text states that Ze > 1.96 indicates both over- and under-represented emotions; the under-represented case should be Ze < -1.96.
  3. [Results - Explainable AI for Social Maladjustment] The text contains the typo 'Modalurity' where 'Modularity' is intended.
  4. [Results - Network features] Table 1 mentions 'Reciprocity (RC)' as an excluded feature, but Reciprocity is not defined in the Methods feature list; please either define it or remove the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported associations are empirical fits against independent psychometric targets, and the data-dependent choices are overfitting risks rather than definitional reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain uses TFMN features (syntactic/semantic edges via EmoAtlas, WordNet enrichment, EmoLex emotional z-scores) as predictors and latent psychopathology factor scores from parent-report questionnaires (RCADS, Conners-3, SDQ) as targets. No target score enters the construction of the TFMN features, and no equation defines a target in terms of a predictor, so the reported r values are not true by construction. The syntactic-distance parameter k = 4 is chosen from the cumulative distribution of syntactic distances in the transcripts, not from the outcome scores; SHAP-based feature selection and grid-search hyperparameter tuning are model-selection procedures that can inflate cross-validated estimates, but they do not make the result circular in the sense of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly disclaims out-of-sample predictive intent: 'cross-validation being used on the whole dataset... a general lack of interest in predictability of unseen data.' That is a limitation on generalizability and the strength of the word 'predict' in the Conclusions, but it is a statistical validity concern, not a circularity concern. Self-citations to prior TFMN/EmoAtlas work are methodological references to independently published tools, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those citations to force the reported associations. Because no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the TFMN construction pipeline (syntactic parsing, synonym expansion, emotion labeling), the psychometric validity of the three factor scores, and the interpretation of network features as cognitive markers. The paper introduces no new entities, but the data-dependent choices of k=4 and feature selection are free parameters that affect all results.

free parameters (4)
  • k (syntactic distance cutoff) = 4
    Chosen based on the cumulative distribution of syntactic distances in the same interview transcripts (68% at k=2, 86% at k=3, 94% at k=4). Controls which word pairs become edges in TFMNs and therefore affects all network features.
  • Number of latent factors = 3
    Determined by comparing factor solutions against randomised data, but no details are given; the three factors define the target variables.
  • Feature selection threshold = |r| > 0.1
    Features with correlations below this threshold are excluded from the predictor set; the threshold is arbitrary and applied to the same dataset.
  • Emotion z-score null sampling size N
    The number of random samples used to build the EmoLex null model is not reported; it affects the standard deviation of the null and thus the emotion z-scores.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Syntactic dependency parsing by EmoAtlas produces accurate syntactic trees for interview transcripts.
    Used to construct TFMN edges; errors in parsing propagate to all network features.
  • domain assumption WordNet synonym relations and EmoLex emotion associations are valid proxies for semantic and emotional associations in the mental lexicon.
    Semantic and emotion features depend on these external lexicons.
  • domain assumption The three-factor p-factor model derived from parent-report questionnaires yields valid latent dimensions of psychopathology.
    Target variables come from this factor model; if the model is misspecified, the language associations are with the wrong constructs.
  • domain assumption Network features such as modularity, core structure and betweenness reflect cognitive and linguistic organization (e.g., modularity indicates topics, high betweenness indicates rumination).
    The interpretation of SHAP results relies on these psychological interpretations of network metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Textual forma mentis networks bridge language structure, emotional content and psychopathology levels in adolescents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGT6O425

@misc{pith2026250506387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Textual forma mentis networks bridge language structure, emotional content and psychopathology levels in adolescents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGT6O425}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06387}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a network-based AI framework for predicting dimensions of psychopathology in adolescents using natural language. We focused on data capturing psychometric scores of social maladjustment, internalizing behaviors, and neurodevelopmental risk, assessed in 232 adolescents from the Healthy Brain Network. This dataset included structured interviews in which adolescents discussed a common emotion-inducing topic. To model conceptual associations within these interviews, we applied textual forma mentis networks (TFMNs)-a cognitive/AI approach integrating syntactic, semantic, and emotional word-word associations in language. From TFMNs, we extracted network features (semantic/syntactic structure) and emotional profiles to serve as predictors of latent psychopathology factor scores. Using Random Forest and XGBoost regression models, we found significant associations between language-derived features and clinical scores: social maladjustment (r = 0.37, p < .01), specific internalizing behaviors (r = 0.33, p < .05), and neurodevelopmental risk (r = 0.34, p < .05). Explainable AI analysis using SHAP values revealed that higher modularity and a pronounced core-periphery network structure-reflecting clustered conceptual organization in language-predicted increased social maladjustment. Internalizing scores were positively associated with higher betweenness centrality and stronger expressions of disgust, suggesting a linguistic signature of rumination. In contrast, neurodevelopmental risk was inversely related to local efficiency in syntactic/semantic networks, indicating disrupted conceptual integration. These findings demonstrated the potential of cognitive network approaches to capture meaningful links between psychopathology and language use in adolescents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06387 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A,B,C: Algorithm steps for creating a textual forma mentis from an interview transcript. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SHAP analysis of feature contributions for predicting Social Maladjustment with GBM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SHAP analysis of feature contributions for predicting Specific Internalising with GBM. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SHAP analysis of feature contributions for predicting Neurodevelopmental Risk with GBM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Natural Language Processing Psychometrics

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM persona questionnaire responses yield interpretable text features that transfer, with modest accuracy, to classifying depression in real human speech.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abramski, L

    K. Abramski, L. Ciringione, G. Rossetti, and M. Stella. V oices of rape: Cognitive networks link passive voice usage to psychological distress in online narratives. Computers in Human Behavior, 158:108266, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Aeschbach, R

    S. Aeschbach, R. Mata, and D. U. Wulff. Mapping mental representations with free associations: A tutorial using the r package associator. Journal of Cognition, 8(1):3, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Aitchison

    J. Aitchison. Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Al-Mosaiwi and T

    M. Al-Mosaiwi and T. Johnstone. In an absolute state: Elevated use of absolutist words is a marker specific to anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Clinical psychological science, 6(4):529–542, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    L. M. Alexander, J. Escalera, L. Ai, C. Andreotti, K. Febre, A. Mangone, N. Vega-Potler, N. Langer, A. Alexander, M. Kovacs, S. Litke, B. O’Hagan, J. Andersen, B. Bronstein, A. Bui, M. Bushey, H. Butler, V . Castagna, N. Camacho, E. Chan, D. Citera, J. Clucas, S. Cohen, S. Dufek, M. Eaves, B. Fradera, J. Gardner, N. Grant-Villegas, G. Green, C. Gregory, E...

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Ariyazangane, M

    E. Ariyazangane, M. R. Borna, and R. Johari Fard. Relation of anger rumination and self- criticism with social maladjustment with the mediating role of psychological flexibility in adolescent boys and girls. Caspian Journal of Health Research, 7(1):5–14, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Caspi, R

    A. Caspi, R. M. Houts, D. W. Belsky, S. J. Goldman-Mellor, H. Harrington, S. Israel, M. H. Meier, S. Ramrakha, I. Shalev, R. Poulton, et al. The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical psychological science, 2(2):119–137, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Castro and C

    N. Castro and C. S. Siew. Contributions of modern network science to the cognitive sciences: Revisiting research spirals of representation and process. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2238):20190825, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    C. K. Conners, G. Sitarenios, J. D. Parker, and J. N. Epstein. The revised conners’ parent rating scale (cprs-r): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 26:257–268, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Crespo and V

    M. Crespo and V . Fern’andez-Lansac. Linguistic indicators of post-traumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 43:69–81, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Cutler and D

    A. Cutler and D. M. Condon. Deep lexical hypothesis: Identifying personality structure in natural language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(1):173, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    De Choudhury, M

    M. De Choudhury, M. Gamon, S. Counts, and E. Horvitz. Predicting depression via social media. ICWSM, 13:128–137, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    R. L. de Ross, E. Gullone, and B. F. Chorpita. The revised child anxiety and depression scale: a psychometric investigation with australian youth. Behaviour Change, 19(2):90–101, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    B. Dóczi. An overview of conceptual models and theories of lexical representation in the mental lexicon. The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies, pages 46–65, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Edwards and N

    T. Edwards and N. S. Holtzman. A meta-analysis of correlations between depression and first-person singular pronoun use. Journal of Research in Personality, 68:63–68, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Fatima, Y

    A. Fatima, Y . Li, T. T. Hills, and M. Stella. Dasentimental: Detecting depression, anxiety, and stress in texts via emotional recall, cognitive networks, and machine learning. Big data and cognitive computing, 5(4):77, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    E. M. Geronimi and J. Woodruff-Borden. The language of generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39:115–122, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Goodman and R

    A. Goodman and R. Goodman. Strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a dimensional measure of child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(4):400–403, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    S. Harnad. To cognize is to categorize: cognition is categorization. In Handbook of categoriza- tion in cognitive science, pages 21–54. Elsevier, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    T. T. Hills and Y . N. Kenett. Is the mind a network? maps, vehicles, and skyhooks in cognitive network science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(1):189–208, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Holmes, S

    J. Holmes, S. Mareva, M. P. Bennett, M. J. Black, and J. Guy. Higher-order dimensions of psychopathology in a neurodevelopmental transdiagnostic sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 130(8):909–922, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Y . N. Kenett, O. Levy, D. Y . Kenett, H. E. Stanley, M. Faust, and S. Havlin. Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5):867–872, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    O. M. Laceulle, W. A. V ollebergh, and J. Ormel. The structure of psychopathology in adoles- cence: Replication of a general psychopathology factor in the trails study.Clinical Psychological Science, 3(6):850–860, 2015. 20

    2015

  16. [24]

    B. B. Lahey, B. Applegate, J. K. Hakes, D. H. Zald, A. R. Hariri, and P. J. Rathouz. Is there a general factor of prevalent psychopathology during adulthood? Journal of abnormal psychology, 121(4):971, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Latora and M

    V . Latora and M. Marchiori. Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:198701, Oct 2001

    2001

  18. [26]

    E. J. Lyons and M. R. Mehl. Disordered eating and internet use: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(7):972–982, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    G. A. Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM, 38(11):39–41, Nov. 1995

    1995

  20. [28]

    S. M. Mohammad and P. D. Turney. Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational intelligence, 29(3):436–465, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    S. E. Morgan, K. Diederen, P. E. Vértes, S. H. Ip, B. Wang, B. Thompson, A. Demjaha, A. De Micheli, D. Oliver, M. Liakata, et al. Natural language processing markers in first episode psychosis and people at clinical high-risk. Translational psychiatry, 11(1):630, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    N. B. Mota, M. Copelli, and S. Ribeiro. Thought disorder measured as random speech structure classifies negative symptoms and schizophrenia diagnosis 6 months in advance. npj Schizophre- nia, 3(1):18, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    N. B. Mota, N. A. Vasconcelos, N. Lemos, A. C. Pieretti, O. Kinouchi, G. A. Cecchi, M. Copelli, and S. Ribeiro. Speech graphs provide a quantitative measure of thought disorder in psychosis. PloS one, 7(4):e34928, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    M. Newman. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, London (UK), 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    J. Olah, N. Cummins, M. Arribas, T. Gibbs-Dean, E. Molina, D. Sethi, M. J. Kempton, S. Mor- gan, T. Spencer, and K. Diederen. Towards a scalable approach to assess speech organization across the psychosis-spectrum-online assessment in conjunction with automated transcription a...

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. W. Pennebaker, M. R. Mehl, and K. G. Niederhoffer. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual review of psychology, 54(1):547–577, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Pugach, S

    C. Pugach, S. Nester, and B. Wisco. Uncovering the temporal dynamics of negative thought in posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, pages 1–15, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Richards and C

    A. Richards and C. C. French. Anxiety-related bias in the classification of emotionally ambigu- ous words. Cognition and Emotion, 6(5):479–491, 1992

    1992

  29. [37]

    C. Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature machine intelligence, 1(5):206–215, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Sekuli’c, M

    S. Sekuli’c, M. Gjurkovi’c, and J. Šnajder. Automated detection of bipolar disorder in text. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Keyboard to Clinic, pages 148–157, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Semeraro, S

    A. Semeraro, S. Vilella, R. Improta, E. S. De Duro, S. M. Mohammad, G. Ruffo, and M. Stella. Emoatlas: An emotional network analyzer of texts that merges psychological lexicons, artificial intelligence, and network science. Behavior Research Methods, 57(2):77, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Semeraro, S

    A. Semeraro, S. Vilella, G. Ruffo, and M. Stella. Emotional profiling and cognitive networks un- ravel how mainstream and alternative press framed astrazeneca, pfizer and covid-19 vaccination campaigns. Scientific Reports, 12(1):14445, Aug 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    C. S. Q. Siew, D. U. Wulff, N. M. Beckage, and Y . N. Kenett. Cognitive network science: A review of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics. Complexity, 2019(1):2108423, 2019. 21

    2019

  34. [42]

    Sorella, A

    S. Sorella, A. Grecucci, L. Piretti, and R. Job. Do anger perception and the experience of anger share common neural mechanisms? coordinate-based meta-analytic evidence of similar and different mechanisms from functional neuroimaging studies. NeuroImage, 230:117777, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    E. C. Stade, L. Ungar, J. C. Eichstaedt, G. Sherman, and A. M. Ruscio. Depression and anxiety have distinct and overlapping language patterns: Results from a clinical interview. Journal of psychopathology and clinical science, 132(8):972, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    M. Stella. Text-mining forma mentis networks reconstruct public perception of the stem gender gap in social media. PeerJ Computer Science, 6:e295, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    M. Stella. Cognitive network science for understanding online social cognitions: A brief review. Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(1):143–162, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Stella, S

    M. Stella, S. Citraro, G. Rossetti, D. Marinazzo, Y . N. Kenett, and M. S. Vitevitch. Cognitive modelling of concepts in the mental lexicon with multilayer networks: Insights, advancements, and future challenges. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, pages 1–24, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Y . R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and com- puterized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology , 29(1):24–54, 2010

    2010

  40. [48]

    M. S. Vitevitch. Network Science in Cognitive Psychology. Routledge, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    M. S. Vitevitch. What can network science tell us about phonology and language processing? Topics in Cognitive Science, 14(1):127–142, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    E. R. Watkins and H. Roberts. Reflecting on rumination: Consequences, causes, mechanisms and treatment of rumination. Behaviour research and therapy, 127:103573, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    F. Xu, H. Uszkoreit, Y . Du, W. Fan, D. Zhao, and J. Zhu. Explainable ai: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In Natural language processing and Chinese computing: 8th cCF international conference, NLPCC 2019, dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 20...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Zhang and Y

    C. Zhang and Y . Ma. Ensemble machine learning, volume 144. Springer, 2012. 22 A Supplementary Information This Section contains additional information for the random forest classifier and explainable AI. A.1 RFR SHAP Values for Social Maladjustment This Section contains SHAP ...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.