MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402659351 · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.087

An exploratory graphical analysis of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale pre- and post-treatment using pooled antidepressant trial secondary data

2024· article· en· W4402659351 on OpenAlexaff
David Byrne, Arunangshu Ghoshal, Fiona Boland, Susan Brannick, Robert M. Carney, Pim Cuijpers, Alexandra L. Dima, Kenneth E. Freedland, Suzanne Guérin, David Hevey, Bishember Kathuria, Vincent McDarby, Emma Wallace, Frank Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersIrish Research Council
KeywordsRating scaleAntidepressantDepression (economics)PsychologyPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyAnxietyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 10-item Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is a commonly used measure of depression in antidepressant clinical trials. Numerous studies have adopted classical test theory perspectives to assess the psychometric properties of this scale, finding generally positive results. However, its network configural structure and stability is unexplored across different time-points and treatment groups. AIMS: To assess the network structure and stability of the MADRS in clinical settings pre- and post-treatment, and to determine a configurally invariant and stable model across time-points and treatment groups (placebo and intervention). METHOD: Individual participant data for 6440 participants from 14 clinical trials of major depressive disorder was obtained from the data repository Vivli.org. Exploratory Graphical Analysis (EGA) was used to identify empirical models pre-treatment (baseline) and post-treatment (8-week outcome). Bootstrapping techniques were applied to obtain optimised configurally invariant models. RESULTS: Empirical models presented with performance issues at baseline and for the placebo group at outcome. An abbreviated 8-item single-community model was found to be stable and configurally invariant across time-points and treatment groups. Symptoms such as low mood and lassitude showed most centrality across all models. LIMITATIONS: Metric invariance could not be explored due to research environment limitations. CONCLUSIONS: An 8-item one-community variant of the MADRS may provide optimal performance when conducting network analyses of antidepressant clinical trial outcomes. Findings suggest that interventions targeting low mood and lassitude might be most efficacious in treating depression among clinical trial participants. Further considerations of the potential impact on trial design and analysis should be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.010
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective DisordersSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207