ArticlePsychiatry investigation2026
Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for Classifying Depression Using Physiological and Psychological Indicators.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate machine learning-based models for classifying depression symptoms using salivary hormone markers (cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA]) and psychological indicators from depression screening devices, and to determine the extent to which salivary hormone markers contribute to depression symptom classification.
methodsTwo models were developed, a multi-class classification (four degrees of depression) and a binary classification model (normal vs. depression), using psychological indicators that assess depression symptoms, protective and vulnerability factors, and physiological indicators including salivary cortisol and DHEA. Each model was evaluated both with and without physiological indicators. Data from 368 individuals were used for model training, with 92 individuals reserved for independent testing. Out of 36 variables, including psychological indicators from the PROtective and Vulnerable factors battEry test and physiological markers (e.g., salivary cortisol and DHEA), 24 non-demographic variables with independent contributions were selected, excluding demographic information. To ensure model robustness, overfitting risks were mitigated using k-fold cross-validation, class weight balancing, and grid search optimization. Model performance was evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and receiver operating characteristic values.
resultsThe multi-class classification model achieved 85.9% and 76.1% accuracy with and without physiological indicators, respectively. The binary classification model (depression presence or absence) achieved 97.8% accuracy both with and without physiological indicators.
conclusionThe machine learning models demonstrated high accuracy in depression classification, showing a noteworthy improvement in classification performance when integrating psychological and physiological markers. Future clinical trials will be conducted to secure additional clinical data to verify the model's reliability and clinical validity.
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.