ArticleNPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience2026
Alignment of natural language processing-derived RDoC scores with depression, anhedonia, and anxiety in psychiatric electronic health records.
Article in NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional categorical diagnoses often fail to capture the dimensional nature of psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety. Natural Language Processing (NLP) offers a promising approach to extract dimensional constructs relevant to psychopathology from clinical documentation. In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed clinical notes from 358 psychiatric patients treated at McLean Hospital and enrolled in the "Psychometrics at McLean" (PAM) study to examine the alignment between NLP-derived Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) constructs and psychometric assessments of depression, anhedonia, and anxiety. RDoC scores for Positive Valence Systems (PVS) and Negative Valence Systems (NVS) were extracted using NLP methods previously validated at the group level and compared with standardized clinical assessments: Positive Valence Systems Scale (PVSS), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Significant associations were observed between depression (QIDS) and both PVS (β = -0.42, p = 0.008) and NVS (β = 0.45, p = 0.015); anhedonia (SHAPS) and both PVS (β = -0.39, p = 0.005) and NVS (β = 0.36, p = 0.030); and anxiety (GAD-7) and NVS (β = 0.29, p = 0.049), but not anxiety and PVS. These results are consistent with theoretical accounts in which both PVS and NVS are implicated in depression, whereas anxiety primarily involves NVS. These findings demonstrate that NLP-derived RDoC scores align with established clinical measures, providing evidence of convergent validity with symptom-based measures and of discriminant validity, most notably the selective association of anxiety with NVS. NLP-derived RDoC scores may offer a scalable approach for characterizing dimensional psychopathology; however, longitudinal and predictive validation will be required before applications such as treatment-response monitoring can be supported.
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.