A prediction algorithm for first onset of major depression in the general population: development and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prediction algorithms are useful for making clinical decisions and for population health planning. However, such prediction algorithms for first onset of major depression do not exist. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction algorithm for first onset of major depression in the general population. METHODS: Longitudinal study design with approximate 3-year follow-up. The study was based on data from a nationally representative sample of the US general population. A total of 28 059 individuals who participated in Waves 1 and 2 of the US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions and who had not had major depression at Wave 1 were included. The prediction algorithm was developed using logistic regression modelling in 21 813 participants from three census regions. The algorithm was validated in participants from the 4th census region (n=6246). Major depression occurred since Wave 1 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders IV. RESULTS: A prediction algorithm containing 17 unique risk factors was developed. The algorithm had good discriminative power (C statistics=0.7538, 95% CI 0.7378 to 0.7699) and excellent calibration (F-adjusted test=1.00, p=0.448) with the weighted data. In the validation sample, the algorithm had a C statistic of 0.7259 and excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2)=3.41, p=0.906). CONCLUSIONS: The developed prediction algorithm has good discrimination and calibration capacity. It can be used by clinicians, mental health policy-makers and service planners and the general public to predict future risk of having major depression. The application of the algorithm may lead to increased personalisation of treatment, better clinical decisions and more optimal mental health service planning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".