Patient-rated scales improve the classification accuracy for patients with depression and anxiety disorder: a linear discriminant analysis.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY BMC Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1186/s12888-024-06237-6
Shanling Ji, Jing Zhang, Cong Zhou, Min Chen, Hao Yu
{"title":"Patient-rated scales improve the classification accuracy for patients with depression and anxiety disorder: a linear discriminant analysis.","authors":"Shanling Ji, Jing Zhang, Cong Zhou, Min Chen, Hao Yu","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06237-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current study aimed to investigate the performances of clinical scales rated by clinicians and patients as well as cognitive function tests in distinguishing patients with affective and anxiety disorders from healthy controls (HCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited a total of 122 subjects, comprising 24 patients with bipolar disorder (BD), 34 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), 29 patients with anxiety disorder (AD), and 35 matched HCs. Three clinician-rated scales and five patient-rated scales were used to quantify clinical symptoms, while four cognitive tests were employed to measure cognitive functions in all subjects. Fisher's discriminant analysis (FDA) was employed to distinguish patients from HCs, as well as to discriminate patient sub-groups from each other. In the FDA model, the prior probability of each group was set as 0.5 in the two-group classification and 0.25 in the four-group classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that patient-rated scales achieved higher classification accuracies than clinician-rated scales in identifying MDD and AD from HCs. In contrast, cognitive tests exhibited the lowest accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that patient-rated scales might improve the classification accuracy for patients with MDD and AD.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"785"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555859/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06237-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The current study aimed to investigate the performances of clinical scales rated by clinicians and patients as well as cognitive function tests in distinguishing patients with affective and anxiety disorders from healthy controls (HCs).

Methods: We recruited a total of 122 subjects, comprising 24 patients with bipolar disorder (BD), 34 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), 29 patients with anxiety disorder (AD), and 35 matched HCs. Three clinician-rated scales and five patient-rated scales were used to quantify clinical symptoms, while four cognitive tests were employed to measure cognitive functions in all subjects. Fisher's discriminant analysis (FDA) was employed to distinguish patients from HCs, as well as to discriminate patient sub-groups from each other. In the FDA model, the prior probability of each group was set as 0.5 in the two-group classification and 0.25 in the four-group classification.

Results: The results showed that patient-rated scales achieved higher classification accuracies than clinician-rated scales in identifying MDD and AD from HCs. In contrast, cognitive tests exhibited the lowest accuracy.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that patient-rated scales might improve the classification accuracy for patients with MDD and AD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者评分量表提高了抑郁症和焦虑症患者分类的准确性:线性判别分析。
研究背景本研究旨在探讨由临床医生和患者评定的临床量表以及认知功能测试在区分情感障碍和焦虑障碍患者与健康对照组(HCs)方面的表现:我们共招募了 122 名受试者,其中包括 24 名双相情感障碍(BD)患者、34 名重度抑郁障碍(MDD)患者、29 名焦虑障碍(AD)患者和 35 名匹配的健康对照者。研究使用了三个临床医生评分量表和五个患者评分量表来量化临床症状,并使用了四个认知测试来测量所有受试者的认知功能。采用费雪判别分析(FDA)来区分患者和 HC,以及患者亚组之间的区别。在 FDA 模型中,两组分类中每组的先验概率设为 0.5,四组分类中每组的先验概率设为 0.25:结果显示,在从 HCs 中识别 MDD 和 AD 时,患者评分量表的分类准确率高于临床医生评分量表。相比之下,认知测试的准确率最低:这些研究结果表明,患者评分量表可提高 MDD 和 AD 患者的分类准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Adverse childhood experiences leading to narcissistic personality disorder: a case report. Exploring the association between childhood trauma and limbic system subregion volumes in healthy individuals: a neuroimaging study. Suicide-related risk among patients using branded and generic fluoxetine: a propensity score-matched, new-user design in Taiwan. Association between interpersonal resources and mental health professional help-seeking among Chinese adolescents with probable depression: mediations via personal resources and active coping. Comorbid anxiety, loneliness, and chronic pain as predictors of intervention outcomes for subclinical depressive symptoms in older adults: evidence from a large community-based study in Hong Kong.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1