ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Fusion of multiple self-diagnostic questionnaires into optimal diagnostic cut-offs and factor analysis for depression characterization of the Korean university student group.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fusing Specialized Surveys of Rare Populations to Larger Surveys for Generalized Inference: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe were interested in developing a methodology for diagnosing the depression status of a focused population group, such as the Korean university student group, with higher accuracy. To this end, we proposed a method of fusing the data collected from multiple depression self-questionnaires aided by a psychiatrist's diagnosis. In particular, we found that the standard diagnostic cut-offs and factor analysis prepared for a general population by depression self-questionnaires are inadequate for a focused population with its unique cultural background. In this study, a novel approach to optimizing diagnostic cut-offs and generalizing factor analysis for the Korean university student group is presented in the fusion space of multiple self-questionnaires.
methodsWe collected the data from 30 randomly selected Korean university students, over 21 weeks, with the psychiatric evaluation as a reference, then established the optimal cut-off regions in the fused CESD - PHQ9 score space based on the statistical correlation between CES - D and PHQ - 9 and the reference diagnostics. We also re-extracted the factors in the fused CESD - PHQ9 space to expose the key factors that are behind the depression characteristics of the group.
resultsWe verified the existence of a clear correlation between CES - D and PHQ - 9 scores. However, the standard cut-offs of CES - D and PHQ - 9 are found inconsistent with the correlation. The new cut-off regions we obtained in the fused CESD - PHQ9 score space are consistent with the correlation and optimal for the psychiatrist's diagnosis with the sensitivity and specificity of 80.95% and 89.74%, respectively. Also, we identified that "socio-psychological" and "interpersonal relationship" factors are the major factors for the depression characteristics of the group. LIMITATIONS: Although the new cut-off regions we presented were based on the incorporation of clinical diagnosis into the fused CESD - PHQ9 score space, further verification with a larger scale of clinical data is helpful.
conclusionWe identified optimal cut-off regions and generalized factor analysis in the fusion space, which can provide more reliable and trustworthy diagnoses. These can serve as a self-diagnostic tool for reliably identifying the depression characteristics of a focused population as well as effectively linking individuals and psychiatrists as an intermediary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.