ArticleScientific reports2026
Judgment behaviors differentiate depression from anxiety.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Depression and anxiety are common mental health disorders that often share overlapping symptoms. This can limit the specificity of standard screening tools and complicate differential diagnosis. Changes in judgment can present for both conditions and can be mathematically extracted from a short picture rating task. The goal of this study was to determine if these judgment features can differentiate anxiety from depression. This cross-sectional population study surveyed 3476 adult participants (ages 18-70) from across the United States in December 2021. Anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)) scores categorized as moderate-to-severe were classified using random forest, with judgment variables and demographics used as predictors. Judgment variable differences were assessed across anxiety and depression symptom severities. The study cohort was predominately middle aged (mean 51), female (61%), white (84%), married (51%), with 5% self-reporting severe depressive symptoms and 28% reporting severe anxiety symptoms. The 15 judgment variables, with and without demographic variables, produced AUROCs of 0.798 and 0.793, respectively. Judgment variables, collectively, carried 83% of the predictive feature importance, whereas the seven demographics, apart from age, were the least important features (17% collectively). Judgment variables further differed across PHQ-9 and STAI severities. Judgment features from a picture rating task differentiated anxiety from depression and varied meaningfully across symptom severities, reflecting motivational deficits and emotional blunting. Given the prevalence of depression and anxiety, a quick, low-cost, and unbiased tool could improve diagnostic efficacy and patient well-being.
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.