ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Patient complexity profiles in depression: a machine learning approach to personalized mental health.
Article in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient complexity in mental health varies substantially, yet treatment approaches often rely on standardized protocols. Identifying distinct complexity profiles may support stratified care and more personalized intervention planning in depression. Objective: To identify distinct patient complexity profiles in depression across sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial indicators and to evaluate their clinical relevance for personalized treatment planning. Methods: We analyzed complete-case data from 270 adults with major depression using a Knowledge Discovery in Databases framework. Twelve indicators were analyzed via Principal Component Analysis followed by K-means clustering. Robustness was evaluated using supervised validation with a Random Forest classifier and SHAP-based interpretability analysis. Between-profile comparisons were conducted, and expert clinicians evaluated clinical relevance. Results: Model selection supported a three-cluster solution (k = 3: Low-, Moderate-, and High-complexity profiles). The solution was validated using a Random Forest classifier with strong performance (accuracy = 0.91). Statistical comparisons showed that the Low-complexity profile (n = 100, 37.0%) was older and more often partnered and employed, with lower depressive symptoms and better personality functioning. The Moderate-complexity profile (n = 87, 32.2%) was younger, predominantly unpartnered, and had the lowest employment rate and medical comorbidity. The High-complexity profile (n = 83, 30.7%) showed the most severe presentation, characterized by higher depressive symptoms, greater childhood maltreatment, and impaired personality functioning. Clinical experts confirmed interpretability and suggested tailored strategies for each profile. Conclusions: Machine learning identified clinically meaningful patient complexity profiles with significant differences across multiple domains. These profiles provide a framework for stratified care and personalized intervention planning, moving beyond one-size-fits-all approaches.
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.