Auditable cross-instrument detection of unusual multivariate psychiatric response configurations using a semantically aligned covariance subspace.

Background: Conventional psychiatric screening instruments summarize symptoms within individual scales and prioritize cases with high single-instrument additive score severity. This design treats items as independent within instruments and ignores cross-instrument covariance structure, making it insensitive to respondents whose responses are distributed across multiple domains in unusual combinations that remain below threshold on every individual scale. Methods: We analyzed two cohorts spanning older and younger adults. Item prompts from depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep instruments were embedded into a shared semantic space using a pretrained sentence encoder. Principal component analysis of the Results: In the older-adult Health and Retirement Study (HRS) cohort, principal component analysis of 27 item-prompt embeddings showed that a 10-dimensional subspace provided a stable representation of cross-instrument semantic structure. In the younger-adult Xinxiang cohort the corresponding stable solution was 16-dimensional. In each cohort, seven respondents remained as multivariate outliers despite falling below every single-instrument extreme-value threshold. These cases were not characterized by uniformly severe symptom scores but by unusual cross-domain response configurations that became visible only in the shared semantic covariance subspace. The response structure of the retained configurations differed across cohorts: older-adult cases more often involved weak endorsement of mood-labeled items alongside nonzero body- and sleep-related responses, whereas younger-adult cases more often involved incomplete response configurations spanning mood, sleep, stress, and self-harm-related items. Conclusions: A semantically aligned, auditable covariance subspace provides a practical tool for flagging unusual multivariate response configurations that single-instrument additive screening may not flag. The method is interpretable at the level of original item contributions. It should be understood as a hypothesis-generating screen for unusual response configurations requiring further clinical assessment, not as a diagnostic instrument. Outcome validity remains to be established by prospective study.