Multifactorial prediction of depression diagnosis and symptom dimensions
Open accessAbstract
While depression is a leading cause of disability, prior investigations of depression have been limited by studying correlates in isolation. A data-driven approach was applied to identify out-of-sample predictors of current depression from adults (N = 217) sampled on a continuum of no depression to clinical levels. The current study used elastic net regularized regression and predictors from sociodemographic, self-report, polygenic scores, resting electroencephalography, pupillometry, actigraphy, and cognitive tasks to classify individuals into currently depressed (MDE), psychiatric control (PC), and no current psychopathology (NP) groups, as well as predicting symptom severity and lifetime MDE. Cross-validated models explained 20.6% of the out-of-fold deviance for the classification of MDEs versus PC, 33.2% of the deviance for MDE versus NP, but -0.6% of the deviance between PC and NP. Additionally, predictors accounted for 25.7% of the out-of-fold variance in anhedonia severity, 65.7% of the variance in depression severity, and 12.9% of the deviance in lifetime depression (yes/no). Self-referent processing, anhedonia, and psychosocial functioning emerged as important differentiators of MDE and PC groups. Findings highlight the advantages of using psychiatric control groups to isolate factors specific to depression.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
McNamara et al. found that psychosocial predictors such as negative self-referential thinking, rumination, self-reported sleep quality, and functional distress were important in predicting depression.
“The results revealed that psychosocial predictors such as negative self-referential thinking, rumination, self- reported sleep quality, and functional distress were important in predicting depression.”
From A narrative review of digital biomarkers in the management of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant forms (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The integration of movement, light exposure, and smartphone data has enabled accurate predictions and revealed common features across mood disorders, indicating transdiagnostic traits.
“The integration of movement, light exposure, and smartphone data has not only enabled accurate predictions but has also revealed common features across mood disorders, highlighting the existence of transdiagnostic traits.”
From A narrative review of digital biomarkers in the management of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant forms (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- McNamara, M. E., Shumake, J., Stewart, R. A., Labrada, J., Alario, A., Allen, J. J. B., Palmer, R., Schnyer, D. M., McGeary, J. E., & Beevers, C. G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Emory University (US)
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McNamara, Mary E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 298
- Pages
- 113805
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8042639
- OpenAlex
- W3004471155
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 3.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01DA042742, R21MH110758, R33MH109600, R56MH108650)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Keywords
- depression, depression prediction, anhedonia, depression severity, lifetime depression, psychosocial functioning, polygenic risk score, resting-state EEG, pupillometry, actigraphy, elastic net, psychiatric classification
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Anhedonia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review