Optimizing the Prediction of Depression Remission: A Longitudinal Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decisions about when to change antidepressant treatment are complex and benefit from accurate prediction of treatment outcome. Prognostic accuracy can be enhanced by incorporating repeated assessments of symptom severity collected during treatment. Participants (n = 714) from the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression study received escitalopram or nortriptyline over 12 weeks. Remission was defined as scoring ≤ 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale. Predictors included demographic, clinical, and genetic variables (at 0 weeks) and measures of symptom severity (at 0, 2, 4, and 6 weeks). Longitudinal descriptors extracted with growth curves and topological data analysis were used to inform prediction of remission. Repeated assessments produced gradual and drug-specific improvements in predictive performance. By Week 4, models' discrimination in all samples reached levels that might usefully inform treatment decisions (area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) = 0.777 for nortriptyline; AUC = 0.807 for escitalopram; AUC = 0.794 for combined sample). Decisions around switching or modifying treatments for depression can be informed by repeated symptom assessments collected during treatment, but not until 4 weeks after the start of treatment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".