Trajectories of remitted psychotic depression: identification of predictors of worsening by machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remitted psychotic depression (MDDPsy) has heterogeneity of outcome. The study's aims were to identify subgroups of persons with remitted MDDPsy with distinct trajectories of depression severity during continuation treatment and to detect predictors of membership to the worsening trajectory. METHOD: One hundred and twenty-six persons aged 18-85 years participated in a 36-week randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) that examined the clinical effects of continuing olanzapine once an episode of MDDPsy had remitted with sertraline plus olanzapine. Latent class mixed modeling was used to identify subgroups of participants with distinct trajectories of depression severity during the RCT. Machine learning was used to predict membership to the trajectories based on participant pre-trajectory characteristics. RESULTS: Seventy-one (56.3%) participants belonged to a subgroup with a stable trajectory of depression scores and 55 (43.7%) belonged to a subgroup with a worsening trajectory. A random forest model with high prediction accuracy (AUC of 0.812) found that the strongest predictors of membership to the worsening subgroup were residual depression symptoms at onset of remission, followed by anxiety score at RCT baseline and age of onset of the first lifetime depressive episode. In a logistic regression model that examined depression score at onset of remission as the only predictor variable, the AUC (0.778) was close to that of the machine learning model. CONCLUSIONS: Residual depression at onset of remission has high accuracy in predicting membership to worsening outcome of remitted MDDPsy. Research is needed to determine how best to optimize the outcome of psychotic MDDPsy with residual symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".