ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Development and external validation of a diagnostic model for differentiating major depressive disorder from bipolar disorder.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMisdiagnosing bipolar disorder (BD) as major depressive disorder (MDD) can lead to poor treatment outcomes. This study aims to develop and validate a machine learning-based model to effectively differentiate between MDD and BD using electronic medical record (EMR) data.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 584 patients with BD and 1,179 patients with MDD from two medical centers between January 2022 and August 2024. Feature selection was performed using both Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and the Boruta algorithm. Six machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to construct the model. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was conducted to improve model interpretability.
resultsAmong the six machine learning models constructed based on these features, the RF model demonstrated the best overall performance, achieving the highest (AUC = 0.863) in the internal validation set and also showing moderate discriminative ability (AUC = 0.710) in the external validation set. SHAP analysis identified illness duration, creatine kinase, and age of onset as the most important predictive features.
conclusionsThe 7-predictor RF model demonstrated moderate discriminative performance, showing potential as an auxiliary decision support tool for distinguishing hospitalized BD from MDD patients. However, the reliance on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) criteria may result in the misclassification of latent BD, thereby limiting the model’s accuracy and generalizability. Furthermore, future work should validate the model’s generalization ability in multi-center samples and develop intuitive decision support tools to enhance clinical utility. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. This is a retrospective observational study that does not involve any clinical intervention; therefore, clinical trial registration was not required.
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.