Accuracy of automated classification of major depressive disorder as a function of symptom severity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence documents the potential of machine learning for developing brain based diagnostic methods for major depressive disorder (MDD). As symptom severity may influence brain activity, we investigated whether the severity of MDD affected the accuracies of machine learned MDD-vs-Control diagnostic classifiers. METHODS: Forty-five medication-free patients with DSM-IV defined MDD and 19 healthy controls participated in the study. Based on depression severity as determined by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), MDD patients were sorted into three groups: mild to moderate depression (HRSD 14-19), severe depression (HRSD 20-23), and very severe depression (HRSD ≥ 24). We collected functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data during both resting-state and an emotional-face matching task. Patients in each of the three severity groups were compared against controls in separate analyses, using either the resting-state or task-based fMRI data. We use each of these six datasets with linear support vector machine (SVM) binary classifiers for identifying individuals as patients or controls. RESULTS: The resting-state fMRI data showed statistically significant classification accuracy only for the very severe depression group (accuracy 66%, p = 0.012 corrected), while mild to moderate (accuracy 58%, p = 1.0 corrected) and severe depression (accuracy 52%, p = 1.0 corrected) were only at chance. With task-based fMRI data, the automated classifier performed at chance in all three severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Binary linear SVM classifiers achieved significant classification of very severe depression with resting-state fMRI, but the contribution of brain measurements may have limited potential in differentiating patients with less severe depression from healthy controls.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.081 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it