SELF-REPORT AND CLINICIAN-RATED MEASURES OF DEPRESSION SEVERITY: CAN ONE REPLACE THE OTHER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that clinician-rated scales and self-report questionnaires may be interchangeable in the measurement of depression severity, but it has not been tested whether clinically significant information is lost when assessment is restricted to either clinician-rated or self-report instruments. The aim of this study is to test whether self-report provides information relevant to short-term treatment outcomes that is not captured by clinician-rating and vice versa. METHODS: In genome-based drugs for depression (GENDEP), 811 patients with major depressive disorder treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline were assessed with the clinician-rated Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), and the self-report Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). In sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D), 4,041 patients treated with citalopram were assessed with the clinician-rated and self-report versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C and QIDS-SR) in addition to HRSD. RESULTS: In GENDEP, baseline BDI significantly predicted outcome on MADRS/HRSD after adjusting for baseline MADRS/HRSD, explaining additional 3 to 4% of variation in the clinician-rated outcomes (both P < .001). Likewise, each clinician-rated scale significantly predicted outcome on BDI after adjusting for baseline BDI and explained additional 1% of variance in the self-reported outcome (both P < .001). The results were confirmed in STAR*D, where self-report and clinician-rated versions of the same instrument each uniquely contributed to the prediction of treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Complete assessment of depression should include both clinician-rated scales and self-reported measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".