Relationship between Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores in older adults with major depressive disorder: An analysis of the OPTIMUM clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are commonly used scales to measure depression severity in older adults. METHODS: We utilized data from the Optimizing Outcomes of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Older Adults (OPTIMUM) clinical trial to produce conversion tables relating PHQ-9 and MADRS total scores. We split the sample into training (N = 555) and validation samples (N = 187). Equipercentile linking was performed on the training sample to produce conversion tables for PHQ-9 and MADRS. We compared the original and estimated scores in the validation sample with Bland-Altman analysis. We compared the depression severity level using the original and estimated scores with Chi-square tests. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman analysis confirmed that differences between the original and estimated scores for at least 95 % of the sample fit within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean difference. Chi-square tests showed a significant difference in the proportion of participants at each depression severity category determined using the original and estimated scores. LIMITATIONS: The conversion tables should be used with caution when comparing depression severity at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: Our conversion tables relating PHQ-9 and MADRS scores can be used to compare treatment outcomes using aggregate data in studies that only used one of these scales.
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 | 0.060 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".