Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29879133›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Predictive modeling of treatment resistant depression using data from STAR*D and an independent clinical study.

Zhi Nie, Srinivasan Vairavan, Vaibhav A Narayan, Jieping Ye, Qingqin S Li

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Learning Outcomes That Maximally Differentiate Psychiatric Treatments.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zhi NieDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Srinivasan VairavanNeuroscience Therapeutic Area, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Pennington, NJ, United States of America.
Vaibhav A NarayanNeuroscience Therapeutic Area, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Pennington, NJ, United States of America.
Jieping YeDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Qingqin S LiNeuroscience Therapeutic Area, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Pennington, NJ, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4182-4535

Funding

TREATMENT RESISTANT DEPRESSION-278990003N01MH090003 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR/DALLAS · 1999 to 2003
–
NIMH NIH HHS N01 MH090003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of risk factors of treatment resistance may be useful to guide treatment selection, avoid inefficient trial-and-error, and improve major depressive disorder (MDD) care. We extended the work in predictive modeling of treatment resistant depression (TRD) via partition of the data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) cohort into a training and a testing dataset. We also included data from a small yet completely independent cohort RIS-INT-93 as an external test dataset. We used features from enrollment and level 1 treatment (up to week 2 response only) of STAR*D to explore the feature space comprehensively and applied machine learning methods to model TRD outcome at level 2. For TRD defined using QIDS-C16 remission criteria, multiple machine learning models were internally cross-validated in the STAR*D training dataset and externally validated in both the STAR*D testing dataset and RIS-INT-93 independent dataset with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.70-0.78 and 0.72-0.77, respectively. The upper bound for the AUC achievable with the full set of features could be as high as 0.78 in the STAR*D testing dataset. Model developed using top 30 features identified using feature selection technique (k-means clustering followed by χ2 test) achieved an AUC of 0.77 in the STAR*D testing dataset. In addition, the model developed using overlapping features between STAR*D and RIS-INT-93, achieved an AUC of > 0.70 in both the STAR*D testing and RIS-INT-93 datasets. Among all the features explored in STAR*D and RIS-INT-93 datasets, the most important feature was early or initial treatment response or symptom severity at week 2. These results indicate that prediction of TRD prior to undergoing a second round of antidepressant treatment could be feasible even in the absence of biomarker data.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDrug ResistanceMachine LearningMajor Depressive DisorderAdultAntidepressive AgentsFemaleHumansMaleModels, BiologicalPredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID29879133
PMCPMC5991746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.