ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Leakage-Free Multimodal Depression Screening: Controlled Evaluation of Text, Facial Behavior, and Prosodic Fusion.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multimodal behavioral sensing may support depression screening, but evaluation on small clinical-interview datasets is particularly vulnerable to data leakage and model-selection bias. We present a leakage-audited trimodal framework evaluated on DAIC-WOZ (n=180, PHQ-8 ≥10), combining SBERT text embeddings, OpenFace facial-behavior descriptors, and COVAREP prosodic features. Participant-level partitioning is performed before augmentation, while decision thresholds and neural-model checkpoints are selected exclusively from internal validation data. A controlled five-seed experiment showed that a deliberately leaky full-pool MixUp construction, in which a retained development sample could include a held-out participant as its second parent, was associated with a 27-33 percentage-point increase in Macro-F1 across four fusion configurations. Under the participant-level leakage-free 5-fold protocol, trimodal late fusion achieved a Macro-F1 of 0.532±0.041, compared with 0.446±0.021 for Text+Imaging late fusion. Paired participant-level correctness outcomes also favored trimodal fusion (McNemar χ2=6.618, p=0.010), consistent with improved paired classification when the audio modality was included under the leakage-free protocol. On 86 participant-disjoint E-DAIC sessions, using a consistent PHQ-8-based outcome definition (PHQ-8 ≥10), trimodal late fusion achieved Macro-F1 = 0.621 and AUC = 0.676; this experiment is interpreted as within-family generalization rather than independent cross-corpus validation. Overall, the results show that leakage control can substantially alter both absolute performance and comparative conclusions, and that multimodal gains should be established through participant-level evaluation, modality-specific analysis, and reproducible model-selection procedures.
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.