MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410883894 · doi:10.2196/56057

Comparative Efficacy of MultiModal AI Methods in Screening for Major Depressive Disorder: Machine Learning Model Development Predictive Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4410883894 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Donghao Chen, Xiaolong Zhang, Runqi Qiao, Nanxi Li, Honggang Zhang, Gang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderArtificial intelligencePsychologyCorrelationMachine learningComputer scienceClinical psychologyMathematicsMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Conventional approaches for major depressive disorder (MDD) screening rely on two effective but subjective paradigms: self-rated scales and clinical interviews. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially contribute to psychiatry, especially through the use of objective data such as objective audiovisual signals. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different paradigms using AI analysis on audiovisual signals. Methods: We recruited 89 participants (mean age, 37.1 years; male: 30/89, 33.7%; female: 59/89, 66.3%), including 41 patients with MDD and 48 asymptomatic participants. We developed AI models using facial movement, acoustic, and text features extracted from videos obtained via a tool, incorporating four paradigms: conventional scale (CS), question and answering (Q&A), mental imagery description (MID), and video watching (VW). Ablation experiments and 5-fold cross-validation were performed using two AI methods to ascertain the efficacy of paradigm combinations. Attention scores from the deep learning model were calculated and compared with correlation results to assess comprehensibility. Results: In video clip-based analyses, Q&A outperformed MID with a mean binary sensitivity of 79.06% (95%CI 77.06%-83.35%; P=.03) and an effect size of 1.0. Among individuals, the combination of Q&A and MID outperformed MID alone with a mean extent accuracy of 80.00% (95%CI 65.88%-88.24%; P= .01), with an effect size 0.61. The mean binary accuracy exceeded 76.25% for video clip predictions and 74.12% for individual-level predictions across the two AI methods, with top individual binary accuracy of 94.12%. The features exhibiting high attention scores demonstrated a significant overlap with those that were statistically correlated, including 18 features (all Ps<.05), while also aligning with established nonverbal markers. Conclusions: The Q&A paradigm demonstrated higher efficacy than MID, both individually and in combination. Using AI to analyze audiovisual signals across multiple paradigms has the potential to be an effective tool for MDD screening.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207