Evaluating the Clinical Feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence–Powered, Web-Based Clinical Decision Support System for the Treatment of Depression in Adults: Longitudinal Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately two-thirds of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission during their first treatment. There has been increasing interest in the use of digital, artificial intelligence–powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to assist physicians in their treatment selection and management, improving the personalization and use of best practices such as measurement-based care. Previous literature shows that for digital mental health tools to be successful, the tool must be easy for patients and physicians to use and feasible within existing clinical workflows. OBJECTIVE This study aims to examine the feasibility of an artificial intelligence–powered CDSS, which combines the operationalized 2016 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments guidelines with a neural network–based individualized treatment remission prediction. METHODS Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was adapted to be completed entirely remotely. A total of 7 physicians recruited outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria. Patients completed a minimum of one visit without the CDSS (baseline) and 2 subsequent visits where the CDSS was used by the physician (visits 1 and 2). The primary outcome of interest was change in appointment length after the introduction of the CDSS as a proxy for feasibility. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires and semistructured interviews. RESULTS Data were collected between January and November 2020. A total of 17 patients were enrolled in the study; of the 17 patients, 14 (82%) completed the study. There was no significant difference in appointment length between visits (introduction of the tool did not increase appointment length; F2,24=0.805; mean squared error 58.08; P=.46). In total, 92% (12/13) of patients and 71% (5/7) of physicians felt that the tool was easy to use; 62% (8/13) of patients and 71% (5/7) of physicians rated that they trusted the CDSS. Of the 13 patients, 6 (46%) felt that the patient-clinician relationship significantly or somewhat improved, whereas 7 (54%) felt that it did not change. CONCLUSIONS Our findings confirm that the integration of the tool does not significantly increase appointment length and suggest that the CDSS is easy to use and may have positive effects on the patient-physician relationship for some patients. The CDSS is feasible and ready for effectiveness studies. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04061642; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04061642
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 | 0.026 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".