ArticleTranslational psychiatry2026
Prediction of depressive episodes based on clinical features, cognitive characteristics, inflammation-related proteins, and EEG data.
Article in Translational 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absence of clinically validated biomarkers and objective diagnostic protocols hinders the accurate and effective diagnosis of depression. Although machine learning has been increasingly explored in psychiatric diagnosis, there remains a pressing need to develop a reliable tool that integrates multimodal data-such as clinical features, cognitive functions, electroencephalographic microstates, and inflammation-associated proteins-to improve diagnostic accuracy and objectivity. One hundred and fifteen patients with depression and 66 healthy controls were included in this study, and data on their clinical characteristics, cognitive function, electroencephalographic microstates, and serum inflammation-related proteins were collected. The baseline depression group was followed up after 4 weeks of clinical treatment, with 56 participants completing the follow-up survey, which mirrored the baseline survey. The depression baseline and healthy control groups were designated as the training set, while the follow-up and healthy control groups served as the validation set. Six classical machine learning algorithms-Decision Tree, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, k-Nearest Neighbor, and Support Vector Machine-were employed to train the diagnostic prediction model using the training set. The model was then validated with the validation set to identify the optimal depression diagnostic prediction model. The results of the study showed significant differences in clinical characteristics, cognitive function, EEG microstates, and serum levels of inflammation-related proteins in patients with major depressive disorder compared with healthy controls. In the model evaluation, the k-nearest neighbor model performed the best, with an accuracy of 95.08% for multimodal diagnosis, an F1 score of 0.9545, and an AUC value of 0.9969. In order of feature importance were IL-8, IL-18, ISI, MMP-8, CD40, CASP-8, visuospatial/constructional, and mean duration of EEG microstate D. A multimodal, multi-indicator model (incorporating L-8, IL-18, ISI, MMP-8, CD40, CASP-8, visuospatial/constructional abilities, and mean duration of EEG microstate D) has the potential to enhance the accuracy and objectivity of clinical depression diagnoses.
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.