Cited by 103Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The potential of predictive analytics to provide clinical decision support in depression treatment planning

Kessler, Ronald C.·2018·Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review progress developing clinical decision support tools for personalized treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). RECENT FINDINGS: Over the years, a variety of individual indicators ranging from biomarkers to clinical observations and self-report scales have been used to predict various aspects of differential MDD treatment response. Most of this work focused on predicting remission either with antidepressant medications versus psychotherapy, some antidepressant medications versus others, some psychotherapies versus others, and combination therapies versus monotherapies. However, to date, none of the individual predictors in these studies has been strong enough to guide optimal treatment selection for most patients. Interest consequently turned to decision support tools made up of multiple predictors, but the development of such tools has been hampered by small study sample sizes. Design recommendations are made here for future studies to address this problem. SUMMARY: Recommendations include using large prospective observational studies followed by pragmatic trials rather than smaller, expensive controlled treatment trials for preliminary development of decision support tools; basing these tools on comprehensive batteries of inexpensive self-report and clinical predictors (e.g., self-administered performance-based neurocognitive tests) versus expensive biomarkers; and reserving biomarker assessments for targeted studies of patients not well classified by inexpensive predictor batteries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/yco.0000000000000377

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kessler, R. C.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Kessler, Ronald C.
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Published
2018-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
32-39
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765870488
Cited by
103
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
predictive analytics, clinical decision support, major depressive disorder, personalized treatment, treatment response prediction, antidepressants, psychotherapy, combination therapy, remission prediction, biomarkers, self-report scale, neurocognitive tests, pragmatic trials
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Prospective Studies, Psychotherapy, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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