ArticleFrontiers in sleep2025
Performance evaluation of a novel screening tool for depressive episodes in COMISA: a comparative analysis with standard neuropsychometric assessments.
Article in Frontiers in sleep, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are each linked to elevated risks of depression. When comorbid (COMISA), these risks increase further, highlighting the need for effective depression screening. This study evaluated the screening accuracy of a novel software, MEB-001, for detecting current major depressive episode (cMDE) in individuals identified as with and without suspected COMISA (sCOMISA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective sub-analysis from a prospective multicenter study at U.S. sleep clinics, including 296 adults who underwent routine polysomnography (PSG). Electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram signals, along with items 1 and 2 of the self-report depression screener Patient Health Questionnaire, 9 items (PHQ-9), were used to generate MEB-001 screening output. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) served as the diagnostic reference for cMDE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for MEB-001 and PHQ-9 (cut-off ≥10), with subgroup comparisons conducted using Fisher's exact and McNemar's tests ( Results: MINI identified cMDE in 15.5% of participants (16.9% in sCOMISA; 14.2% in non-COMISA). Against the MINI, MEB-001 achieved 84.8% sensitivity, 72.0% specificity, 35.8% PPV, and 96.3% NPV in the full cohort; PHQ-9 ≥10 showed similar performance (89.1, 68.4, 34.2, and 97.2%, respectively). MEB-01's performance did not differ between sCOMISA and non-sCOMISA (all Discussion: MEB-001 demonstrated consistent cMDE screening performance comparable to the PHQ-9, supporting its potential utility in sleep clinic settings.
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.