Analysis of Automated Clinical Depression Diagnosis in a Chinese Corpus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression clinical interview corpora are essential for advancing automated depression diagnosis. While previous studies have used written speech material in controlled settings, these materials do not accurately represent spontaneous conversational speech. Additionally, self-reported measures of depression are subject to bias, making the data unreliable for training models for real-world scenarios. This study introduces a new corpus of depression clinical interviews collected directly from a psychiatric hospital, containing 113 recordings with 52 healthy and 61 depressive patients. The subjects were examined using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Chinese. Their final diagnosis was based on medical evaluations through a clinical interview conducted by a psychiatry specialist. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and annotated by experienced physicians. This dataset is a valuable resource for automated depression detection research and is expected to advance the field of psychology. Baseline models for detecting and predicting depression presence and level were built, and descriptive statistics of audio and text features were calculated. The decision-making process of the model was also investigated and illustrated. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to collect a depression clinical interview corpus in Chinese and train machine learning models to diagnose depression patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".