Combining clinical variables to optimize prediction of antidepressant treatment outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome of treatment with antidepressants varies markedly across people with the same diagnosis. A clinically significant prediction of outcomes could spare the frustration of trial and error approach and improve the outcomes of major depressive disorder through individualized treatment selection. It is likely that a combination of multiple predictors is needed to achieve such prediction. We used elastic net regularized regression to optimize prediction of symptom improvement and remission during treatment with escitalopram or nortriptyline and to identify contributing predictors from a range of demographic and clinical variables in 793 adults with major depressive disorder. A combination of demographic and clinical variables, with strong contributions from symptoms of depressed mood, reduced interest, decreased activity, indecisiveness, pessimism and anxiety significantly predicted treatment outcomes, explaining 5-10% of variance in symptom improvement with escitalopram. Similar combinations of variables predicted remission with area under the curve 0.72, explaining approximately 15% of variance (pseudo R(2)) in who achieves remission, with strong contributions from body mass index, appetite, interest-activity symptom dimension and anxious-somatizing depression subtype. Escitalopram-specific outcome prediction was more accurate than generic outcome prediction, and reached effect sizes that were near or above a previously established benchmark for clinical significance. Outcome prediction on the nortriptyline arm did not significantly differ from chance. These results suggest that easily obtained demographic and clinical variables can predict therapeutic response to escitalopram with clinically meaningful accuracy, suggesting a potential for individualized prescription of this antidepressant drug.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".