Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30392475›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2019

A machine learning ensemble to predict treatment outcomes following an Internet intervention for depression.

Rahel Pearson, Derek Pisner, Björn Meyer, Jason Shumake, Christopher G Beevers

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Does outcome expectancy predict outcomes in online depression prevention? Secondary analysis of randomised-controlled trials.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Rahel PearsonDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Derek PisnerDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Björn MeyerGaia AG, Hamburg, Germany.
Jason ShumakeDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Christopher G BeeversDepartment of Psychology, Institute for Mental Health Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-0902
University of London · GB

Funding

Machine Learning and Personalized Prognosis for Depression TreatmentR21MH110758 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BEEVERS, CHRISTOPHER G · 2016 to 2017
$430k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH110758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome Internet interventions are regarded as effective treatments for adult depression, but less is known about who responds to this form of treatment.

methodAn elastic net and random forest were trained to predict depression symptoms and related disability after an 8-week course of an Internet intervention, Deprexis, involving adults (N = 283) from across the USA. Candidate predictors included psychopathology, demographics, treatment expectancies, treatment usage, and environmental context obtained from population databases. Model performance was evaluated using predictive R2$\lpar R_{{\rm pred}}^2\rpar\comma $ the expected variance explained in a new sample, estimated by 10 repetitions of 10-fold cross-validation.

resultsAn ensemble model was created by averaging the predictions of the elastic net and random forest. Model performance was compared with a benchmark linear autoregressive model that predicted each outcome using only its baseline. The ensemble predicted more variance in post-treatment depression (8.0% gain, 95% CI 0.8-15; total $R_{{\rm pred}}^2 \; $= 0.25), disability (5.0% gain, 95% CI -0.3 to 10; total $R_{{\rm pred}}^2 \; $= 0.25), and well-being (11.6% gain, 95% CI 4.9-19; total $R_{{\rm pred}}^2 \; $= 0.29) than the benchmark model. Important predictors included comorbid psychopathology, particularly total psychopathology and dysthymia, low symptom-related disability, treatment credibility, lower access to therapists, and time spent using certain Deprexis modules.

conclusionA number of variables predict symptom improvement following an Internet intervention, but each of these variables makes relatively small contributions. Machine learning ensembles may be a promising statistical approach for identifying the cumulative contribution of many weak predictors to psychosocial depression treatment response.

Indexed as

Internet-Based InterventionMachine LearningAdolescentAdultDepressionFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrognosisPsychotherapyYoung AdultDepression treatmentInternet interventionsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID30392475
PMCPMC6763538
OpenAlexW2899758155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.