Prediction of treatment outcome in patients receiving internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for depressive and anxiety symptoms: a machine learning analysis of data from a healthcare-embedded longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics (DTx) show promise in bridging mental healthcare gaps. However, treatment selection often relies on availability and trial-and-error, prolonging suffering and increasing costs. Personalised prediction models could help identify individuals benefiting most from specific DTx. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to establish a machine learning-based prediction model for positive treatment outcomes in patients with depressive or anxiety symptoms after 8 weeks of internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT). METHODS: We analysed a large real-world dataset of patients from the online therapy unit iCBT programme in Saskatchewan, Canada (2013-2021). Clinically significant changes in depressive symptoms or anxiety were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). We trained six prediction models using sociodemographic and mental health-related factors at baseline, compared model performances and calculated Shapley values for feature importance. FINDINGS: Data from 4175 patients using 34 features for prediction, identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, showed the Gradient Boosted Model (gbm) and logistic regression (log) performed best, with balanced accuracies of 0.76, 95% CI (0.70 to 0.83) and 0.70, 95% CI (0.63 to 0.77). Shapley values indicated GAD-7 scores at baseline as the most important predictor of clinically significant improvement, along with mental health history and sociodemographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: The gbm and log models achieved comparable accuracy in predicting clinically significant improvement after iCBT, supporting the use of simpler, interpretable methods in clinical practice. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings could help improve mental health treatment selection, iCBT assignment, enhance effectiveness and optimise treatment for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05758285.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".