Predicting preventative effects of cognitive control training in remitted depressed individuals: A machine learning approach

Yannick Vander Zwalmen , Ernst H.W. Koster , David Demeester , Chris Baeken , Nick Verhaeghe , Kristof Hoorelbeke
{"title":"Predicting preventative effects of cognitive control training in remitted depressed individuals: A machine learning approach","authors":"Yannick Vander Zwalmen ,&nbsp;Ernst H.W. Koster ,&nbsp;David Demeester ,&nbsp;Chris Baeken ,&nbsp;Nick Verhaeghe ,&nbsp;Kristof Hoorelbeke","doi":"10.1016/j.jadr.2025.100894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Residual cognitive complaints are frequently observed in remitted depressed individuals (RMD), which can impair full recovery and increase the likelihood of recurrent episodes of depression. Cognitive control training (CCT) has shown potential as a preventative intervention in RMD with small to moderate effect sizes, but substantial heterogeneity in effects between individuals exists.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to identify individual characteristics associated with CCT treatment response in RMD participants using machine learning (ML) models.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>227 RMD underwent a CCT regimen of at least 10 sessions. Three machine-learning models were evaluated: logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, alongside one random classifier benchmark. Performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC) were computed. Feature importance was assessed using SHAP values.</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>All models demonstrated low performance, regardless of ML methodology. The logistic regression model obtained the highest performance, although this was still considered low (accuracy: 0.54; AUC-ROC: 0.49). Exploratory feature importance analysis revealed that age, sense of well-being, and life satisfaction were important variables in the models, while current use of psychotherapy, number of prior depressive episodes, and history of inpatient treatment were not.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>All models performed poorly, indicating that baseline characteristics did not confidently predict CCT treatment effects in this RMD sample. Exploratory feature analysis indicates that some clinical variables may increase the likelihood of benefiting from CCT, while most demographical variables did not seem to affect treatment effectiveness. However, due to low model performance, confidence in feature importance was low and additional research using larger samples is required.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":52768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100894"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Affective Disorders Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915325000241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Residual cognitive complaints are frequently observed in remitted depressed individuals (RMD), which can impair full recovery and increase the likelihood of recurrent episodes of depression. Cognitive control training (CCT) has shown potential as a preventative intervention in RMD with small to moderate effect sizes, but substantial heterogeneity in effects between individuals exists.

Objective

This study aimed to identify individual characteristics associated with CCT treatment response in RMD participants using machine learning (ML) models.

Methods

227 RMD underwent a CCT regimen of at least 10 sessions. Three machine-learning models were evaluated: logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, alongside one random classifier benchmark. Performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC) were computed. Feature importance was assessed using SHAP values.

Result

All models demonstrated low performance, regardless of ML methodology. The logistic regression model obtained the highest performance, although this was still considered low (accuracy: 0.54; AUC-ROC: 0.49). Exploratory feature importance analysis revealed that age, sense of well-being, and life satisfaction were important variables in the models, while current use of psychotherapy, number of prior depressive episodes, and history of inpatient treatment were not.

Conclusion

All models performed poorly, indicating that baseline characteristics did not confidently predict CCT treatment effects in this RMD sample. Exploratory feature analysis indicates that some clinical variables may increase the likelihood of benefiting from CCT, while most demographical variables did not seem to affect treatment effectiveness. However, due to low model performance, confidence in feature importance was low and additional research using larger samples is required.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
134 days
期刊最新文献
A network approach to shame: The central roles of self-criticism, self-compassion and self-forgiveness in an aged-diverse sample Resilience as a protective factor to academic Burnout in adolescents during COVID-19 Correlates of suicidal ideation and attempts among colleges students in India: A multi-state cross-sectional survey Are amygdala and insula consistently hyperresponsive to aversive stimuli in PTSD? Comment on Bastos et al. 2022 Individual differences in anxious apprehension and anxious arousal alter resting-state network structure and connectivity
×
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