Rasch analysis of HAM-D6.

Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) subscales and their items.

Rasch analysis of HDRS-17.

The global surge in depression rates, notably severe in China with over 95 million affected, underscores a dire public health issue. This is exacerbated by a critical shortfall in mental health professionals, highlighting an urgent call for innovative approaches. The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models, offers a promising solution by improving mental health diagnostics. However, there is a lack of real data for reliable training and accurate evaluation of AI models. To this end, this paper presents a high-quality multimodal depression consultation dataset, namely Parallel Data of Depression Consultation and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (PDCH). The dataset is constructed based on clinical consultations from Beijing Anding Hospital, which provides audio recording and transcribed text, as well as corresponding HAMD-17 scales annotated by professionals. The dataset contains 100 consultations and the audio exceeds 2,937 minutes.Each of them is about 30-min long with more than 150 dialogue turns. It enables to fill the gap in mental health services and benefit the creation of more accurate AI models.

Outcomes after 2, 4 and 6 weeks: mean differences and confidence intervals of pooled groups (HAM-D = Hamilton Depression Scale values <0 favor homeopathy or case history I, BDI = Beck Depression Inventory values <0 favor homeopathy or case history I, SF-12 = short form 12 health related quality of life questionnaire values >0 favor homeopathy or case history I).

All reported depression outcomes were assessed at the end of the treatment period except MIND-IT [33] where depression outcomes were assessed 18 months post-myocardial infarction (0–9 months after completion of treatment).†Cardiovascular serious adverse events = myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, worsening angina, stroke, or other cardiovascular events.‡Of the 2,481 randomized patients in the ENRICHD trial who met eligibility criteria for MDD, minor depression, or dysthymia and/or low social support [31], data are reported only for the subset of 955 randomized patients diagnosed with MDD. Original data for the ENRICHD trial were obtained from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.§In the depression outcome analyses presented, the last-observation-carried-forward approach was applied for missing data. The original published report of the ENRICHD trial [31] reported outcome data for completers. Based on completer data only, Δ HAMD-17: Hedges' g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39 (N = 690, CBT: 348, UC: 342). Δ BDI: Hedges' g = 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.51 (N = 699, CBT: 357, UC: 342).∥The Honig, 2007 [32] study was an RCT nested within the MIND-IT study [33].¶Total cardiac events include cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, heart failure, myocardial ischemia, and ventricular arrhythmia. 17 patients were lost to follow-up (Tx, n = 196; UC, n = 118).#Patients were assessed with HAMD-17 at 16 weeks, but not 24 weeks.*Major adverse cardiac events = events involving death or requiring hospitalization.††Hazard ratio from Kaplan-Meier analysis, but number of deaths per group not provided for follow-up study (Glassman AH, Bigger JT,Jr, Gaffney M. Psychiatric characteristics associated with long-term mortality among 361 patients having an acute coronary syndrome and major depression: Seven-year follow-up of SADHART participants. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Sep;66:1022–9). BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory – II; CBT = cognitive behavior therapy; CM = clinical management; CGI-I = Clinical Global Impression-Improvement; CGI-S = Clinical Global Impression-Severity; CI = confidence interval; CREATE = Canadian Cardiac Randomized Evaluation of Antidepressant and Psychotherapy Efficacy trial; ENRICHD = Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Patients; HAMD-17 = 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HAMD-24 = 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HAMD-31 = 31-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; IPT = interpersonal therapy; MADRS = Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; MI = myocardial infarction; MIND-IT = Myocardial Infarction and Depression-Intervention trial; NA = not applicable; SADHART = Sertraline Antidepressant Heart Attack Randomized trial; SADHART-CHF = Sertraline Against Depression and Heart Disease in Chronic Heart Failure; SCL-90-D = depression subscale of the Symptom Checklist 90; Tx = treatment; UC = usual care.

Results of screening for anxiety and depression using the Hamilton anxiety (HAM-A) and depression (HAM-D) tools (N-192).

BackgroundIt has been claimed that efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating-Scale (HDRS) underestimate antidepressants true treatment effects due to the instrument’s poor psychometric properties. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy estimates based on the HDRS with the gold standard procedure, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating-Scale (MADRS).Methods and findingsWe conducted a meta-analysis based on the comprehensive dataset of acute antidepressant trials provided by Cipriani et al. We included all placebo-controlled trials that reported continuous outcomes based on either the HDRS 17-item version or the MADRS. We computed standardised mean difference effect size estimates and raw score drug-placebo differences to evaluate thresholds for clinician-rated minimal improvements (clinical significance). We selected 109 trials (n = 32,399) that assessed the HDRS-17 and 28 trials (n = 11,705) that assessed the MADRS. The summary estimate (effect size) for the HDRS-17 was 0.27 (0.23 to 0.30) compared to 0.30 (0.22 to 0.38) for the MADRS. The effect size difference between HDRS-17 and MADRS was thus only 0.03 and not statistically significant according to both subgroup analysis (p = 0.47) and meta-regression (p = 0.44). Drug-placebo raw score difference was 2.07 (1.76 to 2.37) points on the HDRS-17 (threshold for minimal improvement: 7 points according to clinician-rating and 4 points according to patient-rating) and 2.99 (2.24 to 3.74) points on the MADRS (threshold for minimal improvement: 8 points according to clinician-rating and 5 points according to patient-rating).ConclusionsOverall there was no meaningful difference between the HDRS-17 and the MADRS. These findings suggest that previous meta-analyses that were mostly based on the HDRS did not underestimate the drugs’ true treatment effect as assessed with MADRS, the preferred outcome rating scale. Moreover, the drug-placebo differences in raw scores suggest that treatment effects are indeed marginally small and with questionable importance for the average patient.

HAMD: Hamilton depression scale; HAMA: Hamilton anxiety scale; SCL-90: Symptom Check List-90.aThe p value for gender distribution in the two groups was obtained by chi-square test.bThe p values were obtained by two sample t-tests.

HDRS: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score, SD: standard variation.

DSM-IV  =  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition), DSM-III-R  =  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (third edition, revised), MADRS  =  Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale, HAM-D  =  Hamilton Depression Inventory, IDS-C  =  Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician.

MDD, major depressive disorder; SD, standard deviation; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HARS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.Subject Demographic and Clinical Data.

Pearson correlates between positive affect scores, negative affect scores and hamilton anxiety and depression scale scores.

Multiple linear regression analyses of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores.

a: information for one subject was lostb: family history of depressive disorder up to second-degree relativesHAMD, Hamilton Depression Scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; NA, not applicableDemographic and clinical characteristics of the study samples.

uOCD = unmedicated OCD, mOCD = medicated OCD, uHC = unmedicated healthy controls, mPC = medicated patient controls. Group differences in age, years of education, Hamilton Anxiety Scale score (HAM-A), and Hamilton Depression Scale score (HAM-D) were evaluated with separate 2×2 ANOVAs using diagnosis (OCD, controls) and medication (unmedicated, medicated) as between-subjects factors. Chi-square tests compared gender (all groups), while independent samples t-tests were used to compare mOCD and uOCD groups on Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores. sd = standard deviation, D = main effect of diagnosis factor, M = main effect of medication factor, D×M = interaction between diagnosis and medication. Only those effects significant at p

MDD: major depressive disorder.SD  =  standard deviation.MWT-B: Multiple-choice vocabulary test.HDRS: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.BDI: Beck's Depression Inventory.* Group differences were computed using independent sample t-test for continuous and Chi-square-test for categorial variables. The level of statistical significance was set at p

AD: anti-depression; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; CDRS: Children Depression Rating Scale; CPRS: Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale; GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale; CGI: Clinical Global Impression; CGI-BP: Clinical Global Impression Bipolar; DHA: docosahexaenoic acid; E-EPA: etyl-eicosapentaenoic acid; EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; HDRS: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; I/C: intervention/control; IDS-C: Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Clinician; LEIDS-R: Leiden Index of Depression Severity Revised; LOT-R: Revised Life Orientation Test; MADRS: Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; MINI: Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Evaluation; NAD: non anti-depression; NPI: Neuropsychiatric Inventory; POMS: Profile of Mood States; PPBQ: Papolos Pediatric Bipolar Questionnaire; SCID: Structural Clinical Interview for Depression; VAS: Visual Analog Score.

Clinical demographics of Graves’ disease patients.