Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32099062›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Multiple Facets of Value-Based Decision Making in Major Depressive Disorder.

Dahlia Mukherjee, Sangil Lee, Rebecca Kazinka, Theodore D Satterthwaite, Joseph W Kable

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Estrous cycle stage gates the effect of stress on reward learning.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lesions to Different Regions of the Frontal Cortex Have Dissociable Effects on Voluntary Persistence in Humans.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Leveraging Decision Science to Characterize Depression.Current directions in psychological science · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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.

Dahlia MukherjeePenn State College of Medicine and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Hershey, USA. dmukherjee@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
Sangil LeeUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4443-9926
Rebecca KazinkaUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1414-8164
Theodore D SatterthwaitePerelman School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Joseph W KableUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Biomedical Image Computing and Informatics ClusterS10OD023495 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVATZIKOS, CHRISTOS · 2017 to 2017
$1.9M
NIH HHS S10 OD023495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depression is clinically characterized by obvious changes in decision making that cause distress and impairment. Though several studies suggest impairments in depressed individuals in single tasks, there has been no systematic investigation of decision making in depression across tasks. We compare participants diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n = 64) to healthy controls (n = 64) using a comprehensive battery of nine value-based decision-making tasks which yield ten distinct measures. MDD participants performed worse on punishment (d = -0.54) and reward learning tasks (d = 0.38), expressed more pessimistic predictions regarding winning money in the study (d = -0.47) and were less willing to wait in a persistence task (d = -0.39). Performance on learning, expectation, and persistence tasks each loaded on unique dimensions in a factor analysis and punishment learning and future expectations each accounted for unique variance in predicting depressed status. Decision-making performance alone could predict depressed status out-of-sample with 72% accuracy. The findings are limited to MDD patients ranging between moderate to severe depression and the effects of medication could not be accounted for due to the cross sectional nature of the study design. These results confirm hints from single task studies that depression has the strongest effects on reinforcement learning and expectations about the future. Our results highlight the decision processes that are impacted in major depression, and whose further study could lead to a more detailed computational understanding of distinct facets of this heterogeneous disorder.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningAdultAttentionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32099062
PMCPMC7042239

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.