4.6 Article

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A PREDICTION ALGORITHM FOR USE BY HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN PREDICTION OF RECURRENCE OF MAJOR DEPRESSION

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 451-457

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.22215

关键词

prediction algorithm; recurrence; major depression; development; validation

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThere exists very little evidence to guide clinical management for preventing recurrence of major depression. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction algorithm for recurrence of major depression. MethodsWave 1 and wave 2 longitudinal data from the U.S. National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Condition (2001/2002-2003/2004) were used. Participants with a major depressive episode at baseline and who had visited health professionals for depression were included in this analysis (n = 2,711). Mental disorders were assessed based on the DSM-IV criteria. ResultsWith the development data (n = 1,518), a prediction model with 19 unique factors had a C statistics of 0.7504 and excellent calibration (P = .23). The model had a C statistics of 0.7195 in external validation data (n = 1,195) and 0.7365 in combined data. The algorithm calibrated very well in validation data. In the combined data, the 3-year observed and predicted risk of recurrence was 25.40% (95% CI: 23.76%, 27.04%) and 25.34% (95% CI: 24.73%, 25.95%), respectively. The predicted risk in the 1st and 10th decile risk group was 5.68% and 60.21%, respectively. ConclusionsThe developed prediction model for recurrence of major depression has acceptable discrimination and excellent calibration, and is feasible to be used by physicians. The prognostic model may assist physicians and patients in quantifying the probability of recurrence so that physicians can develop specific treatment plans for those who are at high risk of recurrence, leading to personalized treatment and better use of resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据