{"title":"Machine learning algorithm-based estimation model for the severity of depression assessed using Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale.","authors":"Masanori Shimamoto, Kanako Ishizuka, Kento Ohtani, Toshiya Inada, Maeri Yamamoto, Masako Tachibana, Hiroki Kimura, Yusuke Sakai, Kazuhiro Kobayashi, Norio Ozaki, Masashi Ikeda","doi":"10.1002/npr2.12404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Depressive disorder is often evaluated using established rating scales. However, consistent data collection with these scales requires trained professionals. In the present study, the \"rater & estimation-system\" reliability was assessed between consensus evaluation by trained psychiatrists and the estimation by 2 models of the AI-MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) estimation system, a machine learning algorithm-based model developed to assess the severity of depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During interviews with trained psychiatrists and the AI-MADRS estimation system, patients responded orally to machine-generated voice prompts from the AI-MADRS structured interview questions. The severity scores estimated from two models of the AI-MADRS estimation system, the max estimation model and the average estimation model, were compared with those by trained psychiatrists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 51 evaluation interviews conducted on 30 patients were analyzed. Pearson's correlation coefficient with the scores evaluated by trained psychiatrists was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.62-0.86) for the max estimation model, and 0.86 (0.76-0.92) for the average estimation model. The ANOVA ICC rater & estimation-system reliability with the evaluation scores by trained psychiatrists was 0.51 (-0.09 to 0.79) for the max estimation model, and 0.75 (0.55-0.86) for the average estimation model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The average estimation model of AI-MADRS demonstrated substantially acceptable rater & estimation-system reliability with trained psychiatrists. Accumulating a broader training dataset and the refinement of AI-MADRS interviews are expected to improve the performance of AI-MADRS. Our findings suggest that AI technologies can significantly modernize and potentially revolutionize the realm of depression assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":19137,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10932776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychopharmacology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.12404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: Depressive disorder is often evaluated using established rating scales. However, consistent data collection with these scales requires trained professionals. In the present study, the "rater & estimation-system" reliability was assessed between consensus evaluation by trained psychiatrists and the estimation by 2 models of the AI-MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) estimation system, a machine learning algorithm-based model developed to assess the severity of depression.
Methods: During interviews with trained psychiatrists and the AI-MADRS estimation system, patients responded orally to machine-generated voice prompts from the AI-MADRS structured interview questions. The severity scores estimated from two models of the AI-MADRS estimation system, the max estimation model and the average estimation model, were compared with those by trained psychiatrists.
Results: A total of 51 evaluation interviews conducted on 30 patients were analyzed. Pearson's correlation coefficient with the scores evaluated by trained psychiatrists was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.62-0.86) for the max estimation model, and 0.86 (0.76-0.92) for the average estimation model. The ANOVA ICC rater & estimation-system reliability with the evaluation scores by trained psychiatrists was 0.51 (-0.09 to 0.79) for the max estimation model, and 0.75 (0.55-0.86) for the average estimation model.
Conclusion: The average estimation model of AI-MADRS demonstrated substantially acceptable rater & estimation-system reliability with trained psychiatrists. Accumulating a broader training dataset and the refinement of AI-MADRS interviews are expected to improve the performance of AI-MADRS. Our findings suggest that AI technologies can significantly modernize and potentially revolutionize the realm of depression assessments.