Measuring the severity of depression and remission in primary care: validation of the HAMD-7 scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic remission is the optimal outcome in depression. A brief, validated tool for symptom measurement that can indicate when remission has occurred in mental health and primary care settings is unavailable. We evaluated a 7-item abbreviated version (HAMD-7) of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) in a randomized controlled clinical trial of patients with major depressive disorder being cared for in primary care settings. METHODS: We enrolled 454 patients across 47 primary care settings who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for a major depressive disorder. Of these, 410 patients requiring antidepressant medication were randomized to have their symptoms rated with either HAMD-7 (n = 205) or HAMD-17 (n = 205) as the primary measurement tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a-priori defined responses to 8 weeks of therapy using each instrument. RESULTS: Of the 205 participants per group, 67% of those evaluated with HAMD-7 were classified as having responded to therapy (defined as a > or = 50% reduction from the pretreatment score), compared with 74% of those evaluated with HAMD-17 (p = 0.43). The difference between the groups' changes in scores from baseline (pretreatment) to endpoint was significant (p < 0.001), without a main effect of group (p = 0.84) or group-by-time (p = 0.83) interaction. The HAMD-7 test was brief to administer (e.g., 3-4 min for 85% of the primary care physicians evaluated), which facilitated the efficient and structured evaluation of salient depressive symptoms. INTERPRETATION: The abbreviated HAMD-7 depression scale is equivalent to the HAMD-17 in assessing remission in patients with a major depressive disorder undergoing drug therapy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".