Comparison of Physician-Rating and Self-Rating Scales for Patients With Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician-rating scales remain the standard in antidepressant clinical trials. The current study aimed to examine the discrepancies between physician-rating scales and self-rating scales for symptoms and functioning, before and after treatment, in newly hospitalized patients. A total of 131 acutely ill inpatients with major depressive disorder were enrolled to receive 20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 weeks. Symptom severity and functioning were assessed at baseline and again at week 6. Symptom severity was rated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZDS). Functioning was measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between HDRS-17 and ZDS and between GAF and WSAS were calculated at week 0 and week 6. Sensitivity to change was measured using effect sizes. One-hundred twelve patients completed the 6-week trial. After 6 weeks of treatment, correlations between HDRS-17 and ZDS or correlations between GAF and WSAS became larger from baseline to end point. All correlations were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Effect sizes measured by physician-rating scales (ie, HDRS-17 and GAF) were larger than by self-rating scales (ie, ZDS and WSAS). Correlations between baseline physician-rating scale scores and self-rating scale scores improved after 6 weeks of treatment. Physician-rating scales had larger effect sizes than self-rating scales. Physician-rating scales were more sensitive in detecting symptom or functional changes than self-rating scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".