Cited by 125Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Predicting the naturalistic course of depression from a wide range of clinical, psychological, and biological data: a machine learning approach

Open access
Dinga, Richard, Marquand, Andre F., Veltman, Dick J., Beekman, Aartjan T. F., Schoevers, Robert A., van Hemert, Albert M., Penninx, Brenda W. J. H., Schmaal, Lianne·2018·Translational Psychiatry

Abstract

Many variables have been linked to different course trajectories of depression. These findings, however, are based on group comparisons with unknown translational value. This study evaluated the prognostic value of a wide range of clinical, psychological, and biological characteristics for predicting the course of depression and aimed to identify the best set of predictors. Eight hundred four unipolar depressed patients (major depressive disorder or dysthymia) patients were assessed on a set involving 81 demographic, clinical, psychological, and biological measures and were clinically followed-up for 2 years. Subjects were grouped according to (i) the presence of a depression diagnosis at 2-year follow-up (yes n = 397, no n = 407), and (ii) three disease course trajectory groups (rapid remission, n = 356, gradual improvement n = 273, and chronic n = 175) identified by a latent class growth analysis. A penalized logistic regression, followed by tight control over type I error, was used to predict depression course and to evaluate the prognostic value of individual variables. Based on the inventory of depressive symptomatology (IDS), we could predict a rapid remission course of depression with an AUROC of 0.69 and 62% accuracy, and the presence of an MDD diagnosis at follow-up with an AUROC of 0.66 and 66% accuracy. Other clinical, psychological, or biological variables did not significantly improve the prediction. Among the large set of variables considered, only the IDS provided predictive value for course prediction on an individual level, although this analysis represents only one possible methodological approach. However, accuracy of course prediction was moderate at best and further improvement is required for these findings to be clinically useful.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41398-018-0289-1

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The model in Dinga et al. (2018) predicted who would develop TRD (defined as chronic depression with no improvement after two years of any or no treatments) and correctly predicted about half (47%) of the TRD patients.

    “The model predicted who would develop TRD (defined as chronic depression with no improvement after two years of any or no treatments), found that about half (47%) of the TRD patients were correctly predicted to be so.”

    From Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard (2023) · cites this paper as Dinga et al., 2018

    The Results (Prediction of LCGA course trajectory groups; page unavailable) report 47% sensitivity for the chronic-depression group. The Methods (Definition of outcome groups and Participants; pages unavailable) define that group as having no relief from symptoms over two years and say participants could receive treatment or none. The paper does not define this outcome as treatment-resistant depression (TRD), so that label is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Dinga et al. (2018) study is the only prediction model built on naturalistic study data that the review found, and it has the longest prediction endpoint.

    “This is the only prediction model built on naturalistic study data that we found, and the study with the longest prediction endpoint.”

    From Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard (2023) · cites this paper as Dinga et al., 2018

    The Introduction describes a prediction model using naturalistic NESDA data with a two-year follow-up. The paper cannot establish what the citing review found or whether this was its longest prediction endpoint; the Discussion also describes a previous model predicting outcomes over 10–12 years. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Dinga et al. (2018) study lacks external validation.

    “However, it lacks external validation.”

    From Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard (2023) · cites this paper as Dinga et al., 2018

  • Only one study involved long-term follow-up of sustained remission.

    “only one study involved long-term follow-up of sustained remission (Dinga et al., 2018)”

    From Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard (2023) · cites this paper as Dinga et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dinga, R., Marquand, A. F., Veltman, D. J., Beekman, A. T. F., Schoevers, R. A., van Hemert, A. M., Penninx, B. W. J. H., & Schmaal, L.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Schmaal, Lianne
Venue
Translational Psychiatry
Published
2018-11-05
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
241-241
ISSN
2158-3188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900054827
Cited by
125
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.156.415)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
major depressive disorder, dysthymia, rapid remission, chronic depression, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, prognostic factors, latent class growth analysis, penalized logistic regression
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Disease Progression, Dysthymic Disorder

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