ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Multimodal AI-based systems in major depressive disorder: a review of clinical and translational applications.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent and disabling psychiatric conditions worldwide, involving alterations in mood regulation, cognitive function, sleep, and physiological systems. Traditional diagnostic approaches often rely on time-consuming interviews and questionnaires, which are largely based on subjective clinical judgment, and may contribute to misdiagnosis or suboptimal treatment selection. Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches for MDD detection and monitoring have been studied using various data sources, including clinical data, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), speech features, and genetics. In this review, we collected evidence on multimodal AI-based methods for MDD-related outcomes, focusing on discriminative and predictive performance, validation practices, and feasibility in clinical settings. A search of four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) was performed, including 40 original studies published after 2015 divided into two main categories: clinical and translational approaches. Our analysis showed that MRI-based biomarkers frequently provide the best performance, but their high cost and time-consuming acquisition limit scalability; simpler measures (audio-visual, clinical, wearable/smartphone digital biomarkers) may offer a better balance between performance and implementability. Reported accuracies are typically between 65%-85%, however a systematic lack of external validation may imply overfitting, highlighting the need for prospective multi-site validation and stratified analyses before clinical translation. Although the landscape is complex, this review suggests that multimodal AI approaches could help clinicians optimize their clinical practices, support decision-making, and monitor patients, thereby improving the quality of healthcare services.
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.