Background: Depression is commonly perceived as a single underlying disease with a number of potential treatment options. However, patients with major depression differ dramatically in their... Show moreBackground: Depression is commonly perceived as a single underlying disease with a number of potential treatment options. However, patients with major depression differ dramatically in their symptom presentation and comorbidities, e.g. with anxiety disorders. There are also large variations in treatment outcomes and associations of some anxiety comorbidities with poorer prognoses, but limited understanding as to why, and little information to inform the clinical management of depression. There is a need to improve our understanding of depression, incorporating anxiety comorbidity, and consider the association of a wide range of symptoms with treatment outcomes. Method: Individual patient data from six RCTs of depressed patients (total n = 2858) were used to estimate the differential impact symptoms have on outcomes at three post intervention time points using individual items and sum scores. Symptom networks (graphical Gaussian model) were estimated to explore the functional relations among symptoms of depression and anxiety and compare networks for treatment remitters and those with persistent symptoms to identify potential prognostic indicators. Results: Item-level prediction performed similarly to sum scores when predicting outcomes at 3 to 4 months and 6 to 8 months, but outperformed sum scores for 9 to 12 months. Pessimism emerged as the most important predictive symptom (relative to all other symptoms), across these time points. In the network structure at study entry, symptoms clustered into physical symptoms, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Sadness, pessimism, and indecision acted as bridges between communities, with sadness and failure/worthlessness being the most central (i.e. interconnected) symptoms. Connectivity of networks at study entry did not differ for future remitters vs. those with persistent symptoms. Conclusion: The relative importance of specific symptoms in association with outcomes and the interactions within the network highlight the value of transdiagnostic assessment and formulation of symptoms to both treatment and prognosis. We discuss the potential for complementary statistical approaches to improve our understanding of psychopathology. Show less
Background This study aimed to develop, validate and compare the performance of models predicting post-treatment outcomes for depressed adults based on pre-treatment data. Methods Individual... Show moreBackground This study aimed to develop, validate and compare the performance of models predicting post-treatment outcomes for depressed adults based on pre-treatment data. Methods Individual patient data from all six eligible randomised controlled trials were used to develop (k = 3, n = 1722) and test (k = 3, n = 918) nine models. Predictors included depressive and anxiety symptoms, social support, life events and alcohol use. Weighted sum scores were developed using coefficient weights derived from network centrality statistics (models 1-3) and factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis (model 4). Unweighted sum score models were tested using elastic net regularised (ENR) and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression (models 5 and 6). Individual items were then included in ENR and OLS (models 7 and 8). All models were compared to one another and to a null model (mean post-baseline Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) score in the training data: model 9). Primary outcome: BDI-II scores at 3-4 months. Results Models 1-7 all outperformed the null model and model 8. Model performance was very similar across models 1-6, meaning that differential weights applied to the baseline sum scores had little impact. Conclusions Any of the modelling techniques (models 1-7) could be used to inform prognostic predictions for depressed adults with differences in the proportions of patients reaching remission based on the predicted severity of depressive symptoms post-treatment. However, the majority of variance in prognosis remained unexplained. It may be necessary to include a broader range of biopsychosocial variables to better adjudicate between competing models, and to derive models with greater clinical utility for treatment-seeking adults with depression. Show less
Pavlou, M.; Qu, C.; Omar, R.Z.; Seaman, S.R.; Steyerberg, E.W.; White, I.R.; Ambler, G. 2021
Risk-prediction models for health outcomes are used in practice as part of clinical decision-making, and it is essential that their performance be externally validated. An important aspect in the... Show moreRisk-prediction models for health outcomes are used in practice as part of clinical decision-making, and it is essential that their performance be externally validated. An important aspect in the design of a validation study is choosing an adequate sample size. In this paper, we investigate the sample size requirements for validation studies with binary outcomes to estimate measures of predictive performance (C-statistic for discrimination and calibration slope and calibration in the large). We aim for sufficient precision in the estimated measures. In addition, we investigate the sample size to achieve sufficient power to detect a difference from a target value. Under normality assumptions on the distribution of the linear predictor, we obtain simple estimators for sample size calculations based on the measures above. Simulation studies show that the estimators perform well for common values of the C-statistic and outcome prevalence when the linear predictor is marginally Normal. Their performance deteriorates only slightly when the normality assumptions are violated. We also propose estimators which do not require normality assumptions but require specification of the marginal distribution of the linear predictor and require the use of numerical integration. These estimators were also seen to perform very well under marginal normality. Our sample size equations require a specified standard error (SE) and the anticipated C-statistic and outcome prevalence. The sample size requirement varies according to the prognostic strength of the model, outcome prevalence, choice of the performance measure and study objective. For example, to achieve an SE < 0.025 for the C-statistic, 60-170 events are required if the true C-statistic and outcome prevalence are between 0.64-0.85 and 0.05-0.3, respectively. For the calibration slope and calibration in the large, achieving SE < 0.15 would require 40-280 and 50-100 events, respectively. Our estimators may also be used for survival outcomes when the proportion of censored observations is high. Show less
