Identifying relapse predictors in individual participant data with decision trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Depression is a highly common and recurrent condition. Predicting who is at most risk of relapse or recurrence can inform clinical practice. Applying machine-learning methods to Individual Participant Data (IPD) can be promising to improve the accuracy of risk predictions. Methods Individual data of four Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) evaluating antidepressant treatment compared to psychological interventions with tapering ( $$N=714$$ N = 714 ) were used to identify predictors of relapse and/or recurrence. Ten baseline predictors were assessed. Decision trees with and without gradient boosting were applied. To study the robustness of decision-tree classifications, we also performed a complementary logistic regression analysis. Results The combination of age, age of onset of depression, and depression severity significantly enhances the prediction of relapse risk when compared to classifiers solely based on depression severity. The studied decision trees can (i) identify relapse patients at intake with an accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of about 55% (without gradient boosting) and 58% (with gradient boosting), and (ii) slightly outperform classifiers that are based on logistic regression. Conclusions Decision tree classifiers based on multiple–rather than single–risk indicators may be useful for developing treatment stratification strategies. These classification models have the potential to contribute to the development of methods aimed at effectively prioritizing treatment for those individuals who require it the most. Our results also underline the existing gaps in understanding how to accurately predict depressive relapse.
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 | 0.036 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".