Automated classification of depression from structural brain measures across two independent community‐based cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been the subject of many neuroimaging case-control classification studies. Although some studies report accuracies ≥80%, most have investigated relatively small samples of clinically-ascertained, currently symptomatic cases, and did not attempt replication in larger samples. We here first aimed to replicate previously reported classification accuracies in a small, well-phenotyped community-based group of current MDD cases with clinical interview-based diagnoses (from STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally cohort, 'STRADL'). We performed a set of exploratory predictive classification analyses with measures related to brain morphometry and white matter integrity. We applied three classifier types-SVM, penalised logistic regression or decision tree-either with or without optimisation, and with or without feature selection. We then determined whether similar accuracies could be replicated in a larger independent population-based sample with self-reported current depression (UK Biobank cohort). Additional analyses extended to lifetime MDD diagnoses-remitted MDD in STRADL, and lifetime-experienced MDD in UK Biobank. The highest cross-validation accuracy (75%) was achieved in the initial current MDD sample with a decision tree classifier and cortical surface area features. The most frequently selected decision tree split variables included surface areas of bilateral caudal anterior cingulate, left lingual gyrus, left superior frontal, right precentral and paracentral regions. High accuracy was not achieved in the larger samples with self-reported current depression (53.73%), with remitted MDD (57.48%), or with lifetime-experienced MDD (52.68-60.29%). Our results indicate that high predictive classification accuracies may not immediately translate to larger samples with broader criteria for depression, and may not be robust across different classification approaches.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".