ArticleBrain and behavior2025
A Novel Depression Risk Prediction Model Using NHANES Data With Mendelian Randomization Validation.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite depression's significant public health impact, efficient and accessible screening tools utilizing routine clinical indicators remain limited. This study aimed to develop and validate a practical depression risk prediction model based on commonly available biochemical markers, facilitating widespread early screening and timely intervention in general clinical settings.
methodsWe formulated a model for depression, scrutinizing an assortment of biochemical indicators and their bidirectional interrelationships with depression, employing data derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and leveraging the Mendelian randomization (MR) approach, a method that utilizes genetic variants as instrumental proxies to ascertain causal nexus between risk determinants and diseases.
resultsUsing NHANES data (training cohort: n = 27,327; validation cohort: n = 4383), we developed two prediction models through LASSO and multivariate logistic regression. Both models demonstrated comparable performance in terms of discrimination (ROC curves), calibration (slope and Hosmer-Lemeshow test), Brier score, decision curve analysis, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement. Given the similar performance metrics and more parsimonious nature, Model 2, with 14 variables, was selected as the final model. MR analysis revealed bidirectional relationships between biomarkers and depression. Higher body mass index level was associated with increased depression risk (odds ratio [OR]: 1.061, p = 0.008). Depression itself showed significant associations with increased ALP (OR: 1.048, p = 0.010), decreased BUN (OR: 0.966, p = 0.032), and TB (OR: 0.963, p = 0.044) levels.
conclusionsModel 2, selected for its predictive accuracy and streamlined complexity, presents a pragmatic instrument for large-scale population screenings, facilitating timely intervention and therapeutic strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.