ArticleIBRO neuroscience reports2026
Interpretable machine learning for depression symptom classification in NHANES: Performance in a curated high-confidence corpus and the full survey population.
Article in IBRO neuroscience 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depressive disorders are among the most common psychiatric conditions worldwide and frequently remain undetected or misinterpreted. Scalable computational tools may help characterize depressive-symptom patterns in large health datasets, but their clinical use requires realistic validation and calibration. Objective: We evaluated machine-learning models for classifying PHQ-9 depressive-symptom status in NHANES and compared performance in a curated high-confidence corpus and the full analytic population. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included 37,959 NHANES participants with valid PHQ-9 data and prespecified demographic, sleep, and dietary predictors. The primary outcome was mild-or-greater depressive symptoms, defined as PHQ-9 ≥ 5. A balanced high-confidence corpus was constructed using clear PHQ-9 rules, teacher-model confidence ranking, Isolation Forest filtering, and class-specific resampling. A LightGBM classifier was compared with logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, support vector machine, XGBoost, k-nearest neighbors, and Gaussian naïve Bayes. Performance, calibration, temporal validation, sensitivity analyses, and SHAP-based interpretability were assessed. Results: The curated corpus contained 5000 balanced observations. LightGBM achieved near-perfect curated-holdout performance, but full-population performance was moderate: accuracy 0.678, F1-score 0.503, precision 0.407, recall 0.659, and ROC-AUC 0.726. Comparator models showed similar full-population discrimination. Removing sleep predictors reduced ROC-AUC to 0.611. Full-population calibration was poor, and self-reported trouble sleeping was the dominant contributor. Conclusion: Interpretable machine learning identified reproducible depressive-symptom patterns in NHANES, largely driven by sleep variables. However, modest precision and poor calibration preclude stand-alone clinical use without external validation and recalibration.
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.