Development and validation of prediction algorithms for major depressive episode in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To develop and validate sex specific prediction algorithms for 4-year risk of major depressive episode (MDE) using data from a population-based longitudinal cohort. METHODS: Household residents from 10 provinces were randomly recruited and interviewed by Statistics Canada. 10,601 participants who were aged 18 years and older and who did not meet the criteria for MDE in the 12 months prior to a baseline interview in 2000/01 were included in algorithm development; data from 7902 participants who were aged 18 and older and who were free of MDE in 2004/05 were used for validation. Validation was also conducted in sub-populations that are of practice and policy importance. MDE was assessed using the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview(CIDI)-Short Form for Major Depression (CIDI-SFMD). RESULTS: In the training data, the C statistics for algorithms in men was 0.7953 and was 0.7667 for algorithm in women. The algorithms had good predictive power and calibrated well in the development and validation data. LIMITATIONS: The data relied on self-report. MDE was assessed with CIDI-SFMD. It was not feasible to validate the algorithms in different populations from different countries. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are needed to further validate and refine these algorithms. However, the ability of a small number of easily assessed variables to predict MDE risk indicates that algorithms are a promising strategy for identifying individuals in need of enhanced monitoring and preventive interventions. Ultimately, application of algorithms may lead to increased personalization of treatment, and better clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".