Machine Learning Prediction of Quality of Life Improvement During Antidepressant Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality of life (QoL) is an important patient-centric outcome to evaluate in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This work sought to investigate the performance of several machine learning methods to predict a return to normative QoL in patients with MDD after antidepressant treatment. Several binary classification algorithms were trained on data from the first 2 weeks of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (n = 651, conducted from 2001 to 2006) to predict week 9 normative QoL (score ≥ 67, based on a community normative sample, on the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form [Q-LES-Q-SF]) after treatment with citalopram. Internal validation was performed using a STAR*D holdout dataset, and external validation was performed using the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression-1 (CAN-BIND-1) dataset (n = 175, study conducted from 2012 to 2017) after treatment with escitalopram. Feature importance was calculated using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Random Forest performed most consistently on internal and external validation, with balanced accuracy (area under the receiver operator curve) of 71% (0.81) on the STAR*D dataset and 69% (0.75) on the CAN-BIND-1 dataset. Random Forest Classifiers trained on Q-LES-Q-SF and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated variables had similar performance on both internal and external validation. Important predictive variables came from psychological, physical, and socioeconomic domains. Machine learning can predict normative QoL after antidepressant treatment with similar performance to that of prior work predicting depressive symptom response and remission. These results suggest that QoL outcomes in MDD patients can be predicted with simple patient-rated measures and provide a foundation to further improve performance and demonstrate clinical utility. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00021528 and NCT01655706.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".