Severity Classification of Anxiety and Depression Using Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire: National Cross-Sectional Study Applying Classification and Regression Tree Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Scalable and accurate screening tools are critical for public mental health strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) are widely used, their full application in large-scale programs can pose feasibility challenges. By contrast, shorter versions like GAD-2 and PHQ-2 reduce burdens but fail to capture symptom diversity. Objective: This study aimed to optimize screening for anxiety and depression severity using classification and regression tree (CART) models, identifying concise and high-performing decision rules based on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 items, and to test their reproducibility in 5 independent datasets. Methods: A cross-sectional, nonprobabilistic study was conducted with 20,585 Brazilian adults from all 27 states and more than 3,000 cities, collected using digital outreach. Anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using the GAD-7 and PHQ-9. CART models were trained and tested on bootstrapped samples (70% training, 30% testing), totaling 45,000 trees per scale. Each model used combinations of scale items and sociodemographic predictors. Robustness was evaluated via 10-fold cross-validation and evaluation across 3 hyperparameter configurations (minsplit and minbucket=500, 1000, 2000). Performance metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: The CART models produced concise, high-performing decision rules-using only 2 items for the GAD-7 and 3 for the PHQ-9. No sociodemographic variable appeared in the final classification paths. For GAD-7, the models achieved an accuracy of 86.1% for minimal or mild severity and 85.1% for severe cases, with both categories showing AUC values above 0.900. By contrast, the moderate severity class had lower performance, with accuracy around 51% and an AUC of 0.728. For PHQ-9, the models achieved 81.7% accuracy for minimal or mild cases and 78.8% for severe cases, with AUCs again exceeding 0.900 for the extreme classes; the moderate or moderately severe class showed 66.9% accuracy and an AUC of 0.776. The most frequently repeated rules included the following: "GAD2<2 and GAD4<2" for identifying minimal or mild anxiety and "GAD2≥2 and GAD4=3" for severe anxiety; for depression, "PHQ2<2and PHQ4<2" for minimal or mild cases and "PHQ2≥2 and PHQ8≥2" for severe cases. These rule-based models demonstrated stable performance across thousands of bootstrapped replications and showed reproducibility in 5 independent datasets through external validation. Conclusions: CART models enabled simplified, symptom-specific pathways for stratifying anxiety and depression severity with high precision and minimal item burden. These rule-based shortcuts offer an efficient alternative to fixed short forms (eg, GAD-2, PHQ-2) by preserving symptom diversity and severity discrimination. The findings support and lay the groundwork for adaptive, cost-effective screening and intervention models, especially in resource-limited settings and LMICs.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".