ArticleResearch square2025
Language-Based Detection of Depression with Machine Learning: Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early detection of depression is critical for timely intervention. Natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) approaches have increasingly been used to automatically detect depression from text data, yet comprehensive evidence regarding their diagnostic performance remains limited. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed studies applying NLP and ML to identify depression from spoken or written language. Six electronic databases and additional sources were searched, yielding 892 full-text articles, of which 123 met inclusion criteria. One representative result per dataset was selected for quantitative synthesis, resulting in 50 independent studies. Pooled accuracy across studies (k = 43; n = 40,983) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83). Precision (k = 28) was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83), recall (k = 33) 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.83), AUC (k = 14) 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85), and balanced accuracy (k = 16) 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.78). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences by language, text source, feature type, and classifier (all p < .001). Accuracy was highest in studies using structured clinical interviews, non-English languages, and linguistic or embedding-based features. However, in one-at-a-time meta-regressions, only text source remained a significant predictor (QM(3) = 8.78, p = .032), explaining 13.6% of the between-study variance. Publication bias was minimal. Automated depression detection from text shows promising performance with substantial heterogeneity. Performance varies by language, data source, feature extraction, and model type. Findings highlight both current limitations and potential of text-based depression detection and underscore the need for methodological standardization and validation before clinical use.
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.