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

Q3 Psychology
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.
预测认知控制训练在缓解抑郁症患者中的预防效果:一种机器学习方法
背景:在缓解型抑郁症患者(RMD)中经常观察到认知抱怨,这可能会损害完全康复并增加抑郁症复发的可能性。认知控制训练(CCT)已显示出作为RMD预防干预的潜力,具有小到中等的效果,但个体之间的效果存在很大的异质性。目的:本研究旨在利用机器学习(ML)模型确定与RMD参与者CCT治疗反应相关的个体特征。方法227名RMD接受了至少10个疗程的CCT治疗。评估了三种机器学习模型:逻辑回归、随机森林和XGBoost,以及一个随机分类器基准。计算性能指标(正确率、精密度、召回率、f1评分和AUC-ROC)。使用SHAP值评估特征重要性。结果无论采用何种ML方法,模型都表现出较低的性能。逻辑回归模型获得了最高的性能,尽管这仍然被认为是低的(准确率:0.54;AUC-ROC: 0.49)。探索性特征重要性分析显示,年龄、幸福感和生活满意度是模型中的重要变量,而当前使用心理治疗、既往抑郁发作次数和住院治疗史不是模型中的重要变量。结论:所有模型都表现不佳,表明基线特征不能自信地预测该RMD样本的CCT治疗效果。探索性特征分析表明,一些临床变量可能会增加从CCT获益的可能性,而大多数人口统计学变量似乎不影响治疗效果。然而,由于模型性能较低,对特征重要性的置信度较低,需要使用更大的样本进行额外的研究。
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 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信