ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Comparative Efficacy of MultiModal AI Methods in Screening for Major Depressive Disorder: Machine Learning Model Development Predictive Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Computer-Assisted Performance-Based Assessment for Mental Health: A Scoping Review.PsyCh journal · 2026Article
- Multimodal AI-based systems in major depressive disorder: a review of clinical and translational applications.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- AI-assisted multi-modal information for the screening of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional approaches for major depressive disorder (MDD) screening rely on two effective but subjective paradigms: self-rated scales and clinical interviews. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially contribute to psychiatry, especially through the use of objective data such as objective audiovisual signals. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different paradigms using AI analysis on audiovisual signals. Methods: We recruited 89 participants (mean age, 37.1 years; male: 30/89, 33.7%; female: 59/89, 66.3%), including 41 patients with MDD and 48 asymptomatic participants. We developed AI models using facial movement, acoustic, and text features extracted from videos obtained via a tool, incorporating four paradigms: conventional scale (CS), question and answering (Q&A), mental imagery description (MID), and video watching (VW). Ablation experiments and 5-fold cross-validation were performed using two AI methods to ascertain the efficacy of paradigm combinations. Attention scores from the deep learning model were calculated and compared with correlation results to assess comprehensibility. Results: In video clip-based analyses, Q&A outperformed MID with a mean binary sensitivity of 79.06% (95%CI 77.06%-83.35%; P=.03) and an effect size of 1.0. Among individuals, the combination of Q&A and MID outperformed MID alone with a mean extent accuracy of 80.00% (95%CI 65.88%-88.24%; P= .01), with an effect size 0.61. The mean binary accuracy exceeded 76.25% for video clip predictions and 74.12% for individual-level predictions across the two AI methods, with top individual binary accuracy of 94.12%. The features exhibiting high attention scores demonstrated a significant overlap with those that were statistically correlated, including 18 features (all Ps<.05), while also aligning with established nonverbal markers. Conclusions: The Q&A paradigm demonstrated higher efficacy than MID, both individually and in combination. Using AI to analyze audiovisual signals across multiple paradigms has the potential to be an effective tool for MDD screening.
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.