[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.  Patient Flow Diagram
Patient Flow Diagram

EEG indicates electroencephalogram.

Figure 2.  The ElecTreeScore Algorithm Applied to a Sample Patient in the Data Set to Predict Level of Improvement of the Loss of Insight Depressive Symptom
The ElecTreeScore Algorithm Applied to a Sample Patient in the Data Set to Predict Level of Improvement of the Loss of Insight Depressive Symptom

Left, the electroencephalographic (EEG) features and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) baseline features for the test patient at baseline. Four of the HRSD features and 4 of the EEG features are depicted as examples. Right, one of the decision trees used by ElecTreeScore to make its prediction. The light gray boxes correspond to decision points where left branches are followed when the feature value is smaller than the decision boundary, while right branches are followed when the feature value is larger than the decision boundary. The other boxes that are different, darker shades of gray correspond to the level of treatment response predicted by the model. The categories of “none,” “low,” “medium,” and “high” are used for the purposes of visualizing and communicating the results, without losing the essence of the statistical findings.

Table 1.  Distribution of the Improvement Outcome (Symptom Score at Week 8 Minus Symptom Score at Baseline) on Each of 21 Symptoms on the HRSD-21 Report in the Data Set Set
Distribution of the Improvement Outcome (Symptom Score at Week 8 Minus Symptom Score at Baseline) on Each of 21 Symptoms on the HRSD-21 Report in the Data Set Set
Table 2.  Performance of Machine Learning Model on Predicting the Improvement for Each Symptom of the HRSD-21 Depression Assessment Scale Using Pretreatment EEG Features and Baseline HRSD-21 Scores
Performance of Machine Learning Model on Predicting the Improvement for Each Symptom of the HRSD-21 Depression Assessment Scale Using Pretreatment EEG Features and Baseline HRSD-21 Scores
Table 3.  Difference in C Index on the Prediction Task Using Combinations of HRSD-21 and EEG Featuresa
Difference in C Index on the Prediction Task Using Combinations of HRSD-21 and EEG Featuresa
1.
Vos  T, Barber  RM, Bell  B,  et al; Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators.  Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.   Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743-800. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Rush  AJ, Kraemer  HC, Sackeim  HA,  et al; ACNP Task Force.  Report by the ACNP Task Force on response and remission in major depressive disorder.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(9):1841-1853. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301131 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Ferguson  JM.  SSRI antidepressant medications: adverse effects and tolerability.   Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;3(1):22-27. doi:10.4088/PCC.v03n0105 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hamilton  M.  A rating scale for depression.   J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56-62. doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hamilton  M. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. In: Sartorius  N, Ban  TA, eds.  Assessment of Depression. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1986:143-152. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70486-4_14
6.
Bock  RD, Gibbons  R, Muraki  E.  Full-information item factor analysis.   Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;3:261-280. doi:10.1177/014662168801200305 Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Evans  KR, Sills  T, DeBrota  DJ, Gelwicks  S, Engelhardt  N, Santor  D.  An item response analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale using shared data from two pharmaceutical companies.   J Psychiatr Res. 2004;38(3):275-284. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2003.11.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Bagby  RM, Ryder  AG, Schuller  DR, Marshall  MB.  The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight?   Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(12):2163-2177. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fried  EI, Nesse  RM, Zivin  K, Guille  C, Sen  S.  Depression is more than the sum score of its parts: individual DSM symptoms have different risk factors.   Psychol Med. 2014;44(10):2067-2076. doi:10.1017/S0033291713002900 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Fried  EI, Nesse  RM.  Depression sum-scores don’t add up: why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential.   BMC Med. 2015;13(1):72. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Tenke  CE, Kayser  J, Manna  CG,  et al.  Current source density measures of electroencephalographic alpha predict antidepressant treatment response.   Biol Psychiatry. 2011;70(4):388-394. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.02.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Jaworska  N, Wang  H, Smith  DM, Blier  P, Knott  V, Protzner  AB.  Pre-treatment EEG signal variability is associated with treatment success in depression.   Neuroimage Clin. 2017;17:368-377. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Kennedy  SH.  Core symptoms of major depressive disorder: relevance to diagnosis and treatment.   Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2008;10(3):271-277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Korb  AS, Hunter  AM, Cook  IA, Leuchter  AF.  Rostral anterior cingulate cortex theta current density and response to antidepressants and placebo in major depression.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(7):1313-1319. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.05.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Cook  IA, Hunter  AM, Abrams  M, Siegman  B, Leuchter  AF.  Midline and right frontal brain function as a physiologic biomarker of remission in major depression.   Psychiatry Res. 2009;174(2):152-157. doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.04.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Blackford  JU.  Leveraging statistical methods to improve validity and reproducibility of research findings.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(2):119-120. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3730 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Widge  AS, Bilge  MT, Montana  R,  et al.  Electroencephalographic biomarkers for treatment response prediction in major depressive illness: a meta-analysis.   Am J Psychiatry. 2019;176(1):44-56. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17121358 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Arns  M, Drinkenburg  WH, Fitzgerald  PB, Kenemans  JL.  Neurophysiological predictors of non-response to rTMS in depression.   Brain Stimul. 2012;5(4):569-576. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Iosifescu  DV, Greenwald  S, Devlin  P,  et al.  Frontal EEG predictors of treatment outcome in major depressive disorder.   Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;19(11):772-777. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2009.06.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Spronk  D, Arns  M, Barnett  KJ, Cooper  NJ, Gordon  E.  An investigation of EEG, genetic and cognitive markers of treatment response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depressive disorder: a pilot study.   J Affect Disord. 2011;128(1-2):41-48. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Bruder  GE, Sedoruk  JP, Stewart  JW, McGrath  PJ, Quitkin  FM, Tenke  CE.  Electroencephalographic alpha measures predict therapeutic response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant: pre- and post-treatment findings.   Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1171-1177. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.10.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Arns  M, Bruder  G, Hegerl  U,  et al.  EEG alpha asymmetry as a gender-specific predictor of outcome to acute treatment with different antidepressant medications in the randomized iSPOT-D study.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(1):509-519. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.05.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
van der Vinne  N, Vollebregt  MA, Boutros  NN, Fallahpour  K, van Putten  MJAM, Arns  M.  Normalization of EEG in depression after antidepressant treatment with sertraline? A preliminary report.   J Affect Disord. 2019;259:67-72. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Arns  M, Gordon  E, Boutros  NN.  EEG abnormalities are associated with poorer depressive symptom outcomes with escitalopram and venlafaxine-XR, but not sertraline: results from the multicenter randomized iSPOT-D Study.   Clin EEG Neurosci. 2017;48(1):33-40. doi:10.1177/1550059415621435 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Baskaran  A, Farzan  F, Milev  R,  et al; CAN-BIND Investigators Team.  The comparative effectiveness of electroencephalographic indices in predicting response to escitalopram therapy in depression: a pilot study.   J Affect Disord. 2018;227:542-549. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Khodayari-Rostamabad  A, Hasey  GM, Maccrimmon  DJ, Reilly  JP, de Bruin  H.  A pilot study to determine whether machine learning methodologies using pre-treatment electroencephalography can predict the symptomatic response to clozapine therapy.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(12):1998-2006. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2010.05.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Williams  LM, Rush  AJ, Koslow  SH,  et al.  International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment for Depression (iSPOT-D), a randomized clinical trial: rationale and protocol.   Trials. 2011;12:4. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Saveanu  R, Etkin  A, Duchemin  A-M,  et al.  The international Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression (iSPOT-D): outcomes from the acute phase of antidepressant treatment.   J Psychiatr Res. 2015;61:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.12.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Shilyansky  C, Williams  LM, Gyurak  A, Harris  A, Usherwood  T, Etkin  A.  Effect of antidepressant treatment on cognitive impairments associated with depression: a randomised longitudinal study.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(5):425-435. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00012-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Friedman  JH.  Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine.   Ann Stat. 2001;29(5):1189-1232. doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Friedman  J, Hastie  T, Tibshirani  R.  Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (with discussion and a rejoinder by the authors).   Ann Stat. 2000;28(2):337-407. doi:10.1214/aos/1016218223Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Harrell  FE  Jr, Lee  KL, Mark  DB.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.   Stat Med. 1996;15(4):361-387. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Lundberg SM, Su-In L. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Preprint. Last revised November 25, 2017. arXiv 1705.07874v2.PubMed
35.
Iosifescu  DV, Greenwald  S, Devlin  P,  et al.  Pretreatment frontal EEG and changes in suicidal ideation during SSRI treatment in major depressive disorder.   Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008;117(4):271-276. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01156.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Khodayari-Rostamabad  A, Reilly  JP, Hasey  GM, de Bruin  H, Maccrimmon  DJ.  A machine learning approach using EEG data to predict response to SSRI treatment for major depressive disorder.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(10):1975-1985. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Jaworska  N, de la Salle  S, Ibrahim  M-H, Blier  P, Knott  V.  Leveraging machine learning approaches for predicting antidepressant treatment response using electroencephalography (EEG) and clinical data.   Front Psychiatry. 2019;9:768. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00768 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Winter  SR, Feig  EH, Kounios  J, Erickson  B, Berkowitz  S, Lowe  MR.  The relation of hedonic hunger and restrained eating to lateralized frontal activation.   Physiol Behav. 2016;163:64-69. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.04.050 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Armitage  R, Emslie  GJ, Hoffmann  RF, Rintelmann  J, Rush  AJ.  Delta sleep EEG in depressed adolescent females and healthy controls.   J Affect Disord. 2001;63(1-3):139-148. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00194-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Renaldi  R, Kim  M, Lee  TH, Kwak  YB, Tanra  AJ, Kwon  JS.  Predicting symptomatic and functional improvements over 1 year in patients with first-episode psychosis using resting-state electroencephalography.   Psychiatry Investig. 2019;16(9):695-703. doi:10.30773/pi.2019.06.20.1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Depression, adult in primary care. Accessed September 25, 2019. https://www.icsi.org/guideline/depression/
42.
Rush  AJ, Trivedi  MH, Wisniewski  SR,  et al; STAR*D Study Team.  Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.   N Engl J Med. 2006;354(12):1231-1242. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa052963PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Fleming  SK, Blasey  C, Schatzberg  AF.  Neuropsychological correlates of psychotic features in major depressive disorders: a review and meta-analysis.   J Psychiatr Res. 2004;38(1):27-35. doi:10.1016/S0022-3956(03)00100-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Rothschild  AJ.  Challenges in the treatment of depression with psychotic features.   Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(8):680-690. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01747-X PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Vythilingam  M, Chen  J, Bremner  JD, Mazure  CM, Maciejewski  PK, Nelson  JC.  Psychotic depression and mortality.   Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(3):574-576. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.3.574 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Goldstein-Piekarski  AN, Staveland  BR, Ball  TM, Yesavage  J, Korgaonkar  MS, Williams  LM.  Intrinsic functional connectivity predicts remission on antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial to identify clinically applicable imaging biomarkers.   Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8(1):57. doi:10.1038/s41398-018-0100-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Williams  LM, Korgaonkar  MS, Song  YC,  et al.  Amygdala reactivity to emotional faces in the prediction of general and medication-specific responses to antidepressant treatment in the randomized iSPOT-D trial.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(10):2398-2408. doi:10.1038/npp.2015.89 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Tozzi  L, Goldstein-Piekarski  AN, Korgaonkar  MS, Williams  LM.  Connectivity of the cognitive control network during response inhibition as a predictive and response biomarker in major depression: evidence from a randomized clinical trial.   Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(5):462-472. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.   J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Psychiatry
    June 22, 2020

    基于预处理症状和脑电图特征的机器学习模型用于预测成年抑郁症患者抗抑郁治疗效果的评价: 随机临床试验的预指定二次分析

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California
    • 2Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California
    • 3Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 4Research and Analytics, Collective Health, San Francisco, California
    • 5Division of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, United Kingdom
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e206653. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.6653
    关键点 español English

    问题  基于预处理症状评分和脑电图测量,机器学习模型是否能预测抗抑郁治疗对各种抑郁症状的改善?

    结果  在这项预后研究中,使用梯度增强决策树机器学习方法,ElecTreeScore 算法可以通过预处理症状评分和脑电图特征,基于各种抑郁症状可靠地区分对治疗有反应的患者和无反应的患者(对 518 名患者使用了交叉验证方法)。

    意义  包括预处理症状评分和脑电图特征的机器学习方法可能有助于预测抗抑郁药会改善哪些抑郁症状。

    Abstract

    Importance  Despite the high prevalence and potential outcomes of major depressive disorder, whether and how patients will respond to antidepressant medications is not easily predicted.

    Objective  To identify the extent to which a machine learning approach, using gradient-boosted decision trees, can predict acute improvement for individual depressive symptoms with antidepressants based on pretreatment symptom scores and electroencephalographic (EEG) measures.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This prognostic study analyzed data collected as part of the International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression, a randomized, prospective open-label trial to identify clinically useful predictors and moderators of response to commonly used first-line antidepressant medications. Data collection was conducted at 20 sites spanning 5 countries and including 518 adult outpatients (18-65 years of age) from primary care or specialty care practices who received a diagnosis of current major depressive disorder between December 1, 2008, and September 30, 2013. Patients were antidepressant medication naive or willing to undergo a 1-week washout period of any nonprotocol antidepressant medication. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 5 to June 30, 2019.

    Exposures  Participants with major depressive disorder were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo 8 weeks of treatment with escitalopram oxalate (n = 162), sertraline hydrochloride (n = 176), or extended-release venlafaxine hydrochloride (n = 180).

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary objective was to predict improvement in individual symptoms, defined as the difference in score for each of the symptoms on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression from baseline to week 8, evaluated using the C index.

    Results  The resulting data set contained 518 patients (274 women; mean [SD] age, 39.0 [12.6] years; mean [SD] 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score improvement, 13.0 [7.0]). With the use of 5-fold cross-validation for evaluation, the machine learning model achieved C index scores of 0.8 or higher on 12 of 21 clinician-rated symptoms, with the highest C index score of 0.963 (95% CI, 0.939-1.000) for loss of insight. The importance of any single EEG feature was higher than 5% for prediction of 7 symptoms, with the most important EEG features being the absolute delta band power at the occipital electrode sites (O1, 18.8%; Oz, 6.7%) for loss of insight. Over and above the use of baseline symptom scores alone, the use of both EEG and baseline symptom features was associated with a significant increase in the C index for improvement in 4 symptoms: loss of insight (C index increase, 0.012 [95% CI, 0.001-0.020]), energy loss (C index increase, 0.035 [95% CI, 0.011-0.059]), appetite changes (C index increase, 0.017 [95% CI, 0.003-0.030]), and psychomotor retardation (C index increase, 0.020 [95% CI, 0.008-0.032]).

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study suggests that machine learning may be used to identify independent associations of symptoms and EEG features to predict antidepressant-associated improvements in specific symptoms of depression. The approach should next be prospectively validated in clinical trials and settings.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00693849

    Introduction

    Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the second leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide, affecting 16 million adults in the United States each year.1 Typically less than 50% of patients with MDD respond (≥50% reduction in depressive symptoms) to their initial antidepressant medication and even fewer achieve remission (symptoms return to the healthy range).2 Clinicians must decide for each patient whether antidepressant treatment is likely to increase the chances of response and ideally remission, weighing the benefits against the undesirable outcomes, including adverse effect burden.3

    The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is a widely used test to quantify the severity of illness in patients with a diagnosis of depression.4,5 The HRSD consists of 17 symptoms of depression—including loss of weight, thoughts of suicide, and feelings of guilt—which are rated on either a 3-point or 5-point scale, and 4 additional symptoms that are used to subtype depression but not to assess its severity. Most studies of depression sum all of the 17 symptoms to a single score for assessing severity of depression, treating depression as a single, unidimensional, condition.6

    However, there is evidence that depression is not a single condition but a widely heterogeneous set of conditions.7-9 Two individuals with equal HRSD total scores may have very different clinical conditions10; specific depressive symptoms such as sad mood, insomnia, and suicidal ideation may be understood as distinct phenomena that differ from each other in important dimensions. Electroencephalographic (EEG) measures have shown significant potential as objective biomarkers for MDD, with accumulating evidence that pretreatment quantitative EEG measures may be useful for prediction of antidepressant response and remission for patients with MDD.11-15 However, we lack an understanding of whether EEG biomarkers predict improvement in specific clinical symptoms as well as robust toolkits to use in making such predictions.10,16,17

    Understanding the association between EEG-recorded neural activity and response to antidepressant medication for patients with MDD has long been a topic of inquiry. Prior studies have highlighted the relevance of particular EEG frequency bands in antidepressant response. For example, patients who did not respond to antidepressants have been characterized by relatively elevated theta power at rest,18,19 although the reverse outcome of relative reduced theta has also been observed.20 Using source localization, theta activity relevant to predicting response among those taking fluoxetine hydrochloride or venlafaxine hydrochloride has been localized to the rostral anterior cingulate and medial orbitofrontal regions.14 A distinct profile of alpha power has been associated with antidepressant response. For example, response (rather than nonresponse) to antidepressants has been associated with elevated alpha source density.11 Other lines of investigation have examined metrics for quantifying alpha asymmetry. Although there is evidence that relatively greater right-sided alpha distinguishes patients who responded to antidepressants from those who did not,21 other studies observe such an alpha asymmetry effect only in women with depression.22

    Although, to our knowledge, there is little work using EEG biomarkers to probe drug-specific antidepressant effects, one analysis from the International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression (iSPOT-D) indicated that abnormalities in EEG peak alpha may be alleviated by sertraline hydrochloride in particular.23 By contrast, alpha peak frequency may predict a poorer response among patients taking escitalopram oxlate and extended-release venlafaxine hydrochloride.24 Another study using data gathered by CAN-BIND (Canadian Biomarker Integration Network for Depression) found that the patients who responded to escitalopram were identified by elevated absolute alpha and relative delta power in the left hemisphere, whereas the patients who did not respond to escitalopram showed the opposite.25 Machine learning methods have been used to identify EEG features predictive of symptom response to other psychoactive drugs, such as clozapine.26 These studies show that EEG features are not only useful for predicting improvement in general but may also be useful differential predictors of improvement.

    In this study, we developed the ElecTreeScore algorithm, a machine learning model to predict the treatment response of antidepressant medications for each symptom of the HRSD based on pretreatment EEG in addition to symptom severity. We developed the ElecTreeScore using data from iSPOT-D,27 which has a sufficiently large sample to obtain reliable associations between EEG markers and individual symptoms, and validated the predictive performance of the machine learning model on a holdout test set. We investigated the most important HRSD and EEG features for the prediction and the outcome of depression using the HRSD and EEG features in combination vs using either alone. This approach afforded the opportunity to identify the association of baseline symptoms and EEG features and to evaluate the extent to which EEG features are associated with depression over and above symptom severity. Drawing on prior findings from the application of EEG in characterizing antidepressant response, our study investigated whether a machine learning approach, using gradient-boosted decision trees (GBDTs), could accurately predict acute improvement in individual depressive symptoms with antidepressants based on pretreatment symptom scores and EEG.

    Methods

    The study was approved by each site’s governing institutional review board (Stanford University; St Louis University; The Ohio State University; University of Virginia; Shanti Clinical Trials; Center for Healing the Human Spirit; Skyland Behavioral Health Associates; NeuroDevelopment Center, Brown University; Brain Resource Center, Columbia University; University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital; Monash University, Alfred Hospital; Swinburne University; Flinders University; Auckland University; Kings College Institute of Psychiatry; Brainclinics Diagnostics & Treatment, Nijmegen, University; and Brain Health, University of Wittswatersrand) and was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.28 Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to patient enrollment at each participating site. All participants provided written informed consent after all of the study procedures and potential risks and benefits had been fully explained. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) reporting guideline was used for the reporting of this study.

    Data Set

    The data set used in this study was collected as part of iSPOT-D, an international multicenter, randomized, prospective open-label trial aimed at identifying clinically useful predictors and moderators of response to 3 of the most commonly used first-line antidepressant medications. As previously outlined, iSPOT-D included 1008 adults (aged 18-65 years) enrolled between December 1, 2008, and September 30, 2013, with a diagnosis of current nonpsychotic MDD. Participants were enrolled when they were unmedicated (either antidepressant naive or after a washout period of ≥5 half-lives of each drug) and subsequently randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 8 weeks of treatment with escitalopram (n = 162), sertraline (n = 176), or extended-release venlafaxine (n = 180).27 Because a pragmatic design was used to deliberately mimic real-world practice in which the goal is to select among active treatments, no placebo control was included.

    At the baseline and week 8 clinic visits, the severity of the participant’s depressive symptoms was rated on the 21-symptom HRSD (HRSD-21). Study clinical personnel made the ratings based on the participant’s reported information during a semistructured interview. Ten of the HRSD-21 symptoms are rated on a 5-point scale (0 = absent; 1 = doubtful or mild; 2 = mild to moderate; 3 = moderate to severe; and 4 = very severe), while the other 11 symptoms are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = absent; 1 = doubtful or mild; and 2 = clearly present).

    In addition, electrophysiological measures were also acquired; resting-state EEG was recorded for 2 minutes while participants were relaxed with eyes closed and eyes open. Electroencephalograms were continuously recorded from 26 sites in 5 regions (frontal, temporal, central, parietal, and occipital) with a NuAmps system (Compumedics) and QuickCap (Compumedics). For each site, we computed absolute and relative band powers for the delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma bands.

    The data available for the study were from the first 1008 participants with MDD, of whom we excluded those who dropped out (n = 286), those with missing EEGs (n = 125), and those with missing features (n = 79). Previously published work using the iSPOT-D data set has shown that there are no significant differences in attrition across treatment groups29 and no significant differences in baseline HRSD scores between those who completed the study and those who dropped out.30 The flow of patients for the resulting data set (n = 518) is summarized in Figure 1. The statistics for the HRSD score at baseline and after treatment are shown in eTable 1 of the Supplement. The iSPOT-D study was approved by the institutional review boards at all of the participating sites, and the associated trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00693849).

    Symptom Improvement Prediction

    Our primary objective was to predict improvement in individual symptoms, defined as the difference in score for each of the symptoms on the HRSD-21 report from the baseline visit to the week 8 clinical visit using pretreatment EEG features. We first extracted electrophysiological features from the raw EEGs recorded at the baseline visit and then developed a machine learning approach for the prediction task.

    Extracting EEG Features

    Pretreatment EEG recordings at the baseline visit were processed to generate EEG features. Data on the power of the EEG signals in each frequency range at each electrode site were extracted using the Welch method for spectral density estimation. Specifically, the Welch method was carried out by dividing the EEG signal into successive overlapping windows forming the periodogram for each block and then averaging; the Hanning window was chosen to reduce the side-lobe level in the spectral density estimate, with an overlap of 50% to tradeoff between frequency resolution and smoothness. At each electrode, the absolute power and the relative power were computed using the Simpson rule for the frequency ranges of delta (0.5-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), beta (12-30 Hz), and gamma (30-100 Hz). Two additional features were computed: a frontal alpha asymmetry feature by subtracting alpha power for a left scalp site (F3) from the homologous right site (F4) and a beta-alpha ratio feature by taking the ratio of the beta features at each of the sites with the corresponding alpha features. Furthermore, power features were optionally filtered to only include occipital sites (O1, Oz, and O2) and/or frontal sites (F7, F3, Fz, F4, and F8).

    ElecTreeScore Algorithm

    We developed ElecTreeScore, a machine learning model using GBDTs for the task of predicting improvement in individual symptoms using pretreatment EEG and baseline HRSD scores. Gradient-boosted decision trees are a type of machine learning model that can capture nonlinear associations in data that traditional linear models are unable to capture and can handle mixes of categorical and continuous covariates.31 The training procedure for GBDTs involves the construction of an ensemble of decision trees such that each tree learns from the errors of the prior tree to iteratively improve predictions.32 Concretely, with each iteration, a new tree is constructed by sampling from the data and first identifying which variable most effectively divides the members into groups with low within-group variation in symptom improvement and high between-group variation in symptom improvement; then, the variable selection process is repeated to further divide each resulting subset of the data, producing a series of branches in the decision tree. The next tree is fit using the same process on the residuals of the previous learner. The implementation details for the model are detailed in the eAppendix in the Supplement.

    We trained GBDTs for each of the 21 HRSD categories across several possible combinations of both input features and parameters for the model. Models were trained on valid combinations of EEG bands, relative and absolute power for frequency bands, electrode site–specific features, and asymmetry features. The combination process first chooses whether to use relative or absolute power, then iterates over combinations of EEG bands, including alpha, beta, delta, theta, and gamma bands (1 possible selection is choosing only alpha and beta bands). Finally, the process iterates over regions where EEG bands are obtained, namely the frontal and occipital regions. After the EEG feature selection process, a list of input features, such as “Fz alpha absolute,” were chosen by the algorithm. We use terms such as “Fz alpha absolute” as abbreviations to communicate which regions, bands, and power metric (absolute or relative) are reported in the results. Coupled with the input feature search is a grid search across GBDTs parameters, including the number of estimators, the maximum depth of each tree, and the number of leaves. The possible combinations of both input features and parameters for the models, as well as the details for the stratified k-fold validation, are detailed in the eAppendix in the Supplement.

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analysis was conducted from January 5 to June 30, 2019. We evaluated the performance of the improvement prediction models on their discriminative ability. Discrimination measures a predictor’s ability to separate patients with different responses. The C index, a widely applicable measure of predictive discrimination and a generalization of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistic, is defined as the proportion of all usable patient pairs in which the predictions and outcomes are concordant.33 Concretely, the interpretation of the C index is the probability that the algorithm will correctly identify, given 2 random patients with different improvement levels, which patient showed greater improvement. We also reported model goodness of fit using the coefficient of determination (R2) and the mean absolute error using output after model calibration. The calibration is computed between training outputs of GBDT and the corresponding ground truth value. A linear regression with square regularization loss (ie, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) using a regularization coefficient of 0.01 was chosen to be the calibration model. We have also reported model calibration using regression slope and intercept. We computed 95% CIs for these metrics using the nonparametric bootstrap with 1000 bootstrap replicates.

    The model was trained and validated using k-fold–stratified cross-validation with k set to 5. In this procedure, the data set was randomly partitioned into 5 equally sized subsamples (with no patient overlap) consisting of an approximately equal percentage of each class. In the cross-validation procedure, of the k subsamples, a single subsample was retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples were used as training data. The cross-validation process was then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The predictions on the k subsamples were then pooled, and the C index was computed; we assessed the variability in our estimates of the C index by using the nonparametric bootstrap with 1000 bootstrap replicates on the pooled cohort.

    Feature Importances

    We used SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) to quantify the effect of each feature on the models.34 Shapley values explain a prediction by allocating credit among the various input features (such as “Fz alpha absolute,” interpreted as “absolute alpha bandpower at the medial frontal [Fz] site”); feature credit is calculated as the change in the expected value of the model’s prediction of improvement for a symptom when a feature is observed vs unknown. To uncover clinically important EEG features that were globally predictive of the improvement for each of the individual symptoms on the HRSD, we aggregated the Shapley values for features on individual predictions and reported the top features per model along with their averaged Shapley contributions as a percentage of the associations of all the features.

    Using Both EEG and Baseline Symptoms vs Using Baseline Symptoms Alone

    We assessed whether the combination of baseline symptom scores and EEG features provide additional predictive value for symptom improvement compared with the baseline symptom scores alone. Thus, for each symptom, we trained additional models that used only the baseline symptom scores as input. We computed the increase in the C index of the default (EEG + HRSD) models compared with models that contained only baseline symptom scores.

    Incorporation of Treatment Group

    As an exploratory analysis, we assessed whether the incorporation of the treatment group would increase the performance of the models in the prediction of symptom improvement. For each item, we retrained the model with inclusion of 3 binary features indicating the presence of each treatment, using the same EEG input features as in the model without the treatment group, and tuning the model across the same grid search parameters. We computed the difference in the C index of the models with and without the additional treatment features.

    Our implementation used Python, version 3.6.8 (Python Software Foundation), using the LightGBM, version 2.2.3 (Microsoft) implementation for GBDTs; scikit-learn, version 0.20.2 (scikit-learn developers) for stratified k-fold cross-validation and grid search; and SHAP, version 0.29.134 for computing feature importances.

    Results

    The resulting data set contained 518 patients (274 women; mean [SD] age, 39.0 [12.6] years; mean [SD] HDRS-21 score improvement, 13.0 [7.0]). Table 1 details the mean (SD) values for the improvement for the 21 symptoms.

    Machine Learning Evaluation

    The machine learning model achieved C index scores, indicative of discriminative performance, of 0.8 or higher on 12 of 21 clinician-rated symptoms. The highest C index scores for prediction of improvement were for the following symptoms: loss of insight (C index, 0.963 [95% CI 0.939-1.000]), unreality and nihilism (C index, 0.951 [95% CI, 0.932-0.976]), and weight loss (C index, 0.923 [95% CI, 0.896-0.953]) (Table 2). The lowest C index scores were for the following symptoms: depressed mood (C index, 0.662 [95% CI, 0.633-0.700]), energy loss (C index, 0.676 [95% CI, 0.637-0.713]), and loss of interest (C index, 0.679 [95% CI, 0.647-0.710]). The performances of the machine learning model on each symptom are detailed in Table 2. An example of the machine learning model applied to a sample patient in the data set is illustrated in Figure 2.

    Feature Importance

    The most important feature for each symptom was the score of that symptom at baseline. The importance of the baseline symptom score was higher than 20% on all symptoms, with the highest association for waking early (64.3%), and lowest association for depressed mood (23.2%) (Table 2). On 10 symptoms, prediction of improvement in a particular symptom involved associations from other symptoms as 1 of the 3 most important features, with the highest association of nighttime awakening (9.2% importance) with the prediction of improvement on the obsessive thoughts symptom.

    The importance of any single EEG feature was higher than 5% for prediction of 7 symptoms (trouble sleeping, weight loss, agitation, worrying, obsessive thoughts, health preoccupation, and loss of insight), indicating the potential independent associations of pretreatment EEG. The most important EEG features were the absolute delta band power at the occipital electrode sites (O1, 18.8%; and Oz, 6.7%) for loss of insight (Table 2). Other notable EEG features included absolute occipital (O1) theta power for predicting improvement in obsessive thoughts (7.3%), relative central (C4) theta power for improvement in health preoccupation (6.8%), absolute temporal (T7 and T3) alpha power for improvement in trouble sleeping (6.7%), absolute occipital (Oz) alpha power for improvement in paranoia (6.7%), and absolute frontal (F4) gamma power for improvement in worrying (6.6%). The associations of the most important features for each symptom are detailed in Table 2.

    Using Both EEG and Baseline Symptoms vs Using Baseline Symptoms Alone

    Over and above the use of baseline symptom scores alone, the use of both EEG and baseline symptom features produced a significant increase in the C index for improvement in 4 symptoms, including energy loss (C index increase, 0.035 [95% CI, 0.011-0.059]), appetite changes (C index increase, 0.017 [95% CI, 0.003-0.030]), psychomotor retardation (C index increase, 0.020 [95% CI, 0.008-0.032]), and loss of insight (C index increase, 0.012 [95% CI, 0.001-0.020]) (Table 3). On the R2 metric, for loss of insight, the use of both EEG and baseline symptom features produced an R2 of 0.551 (95% CI, 0.473-0.639), significantly higher than the R2 of 0.375 (95% CI, 0.31-0.448) produced by the use of the baseline symptom features alone. The differences for individual symptoms are reported in Table 3 and the absolute performances under both conditions are detailed in eTables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Supplement.

    Association of Treatment Group

    There was no significant increase detected in the C index of any of the 21 items with the inclusion of the treatment group feature. The performances of the models for individual symptoms are reported in the eFigure and eTable 8 in the Supplement.

    Discussion

    In this study, we developed a machine learning algorithm, ElecTreeScore, to evaluate the association of objective EEG measures acquired before treatment with the prediction of acute antidepressant response for individual symptoms of depression. Under this approach, we took into account the important associations between baseline symptom severity and treatment-associated change in symptoms and considered the association of EEG features in their own right and to what extent EEG features have a meaningful association with outcomes in addition to symptom severity.

    Our machine learning approach resulted in 3 main findings. First, we found that different specific topologic characteristics and frequencies of neural activity assessed by the EEG were important for the prediction of antidepressant-associated improvement in specific symptoms in models with high discriminative performance. Second, although we found that baseline scores for individual symptoms of depression are strong predictors by themselves, as expected, we also found that EEG features add 5% or more in importance to the discriminative performance for 7 of the symptoms: trouble sleeping, weight loss, agitation, worrying, obsessive thoughts, health preoccupation, and loss of insight. Third, we demonstrated the value of the pretreatment EEG features in predicting improvement in a subset of specific depressive symptoms—loss of insight, energy loss, appetite changes, and psychomotor retardation—significantly better than with pretreatment symptom severity alone.

    As expected, the most important feature was the score of the symptom at baseline, as seen when comparing the discriminative performance of training on only the EEG features and adding in the HRSD survey scores as inputs. However, our machine learning model suggests that EEG features are meaningfully associated with predicting individual symptom improvement both in combination with baseline symptom severity and over and above symptom severity as independent predictors. To identify independent predictors, we evaluated the addition of EEG features to baseline symptom severity and, in this model, 4 categories saw a significant increase in discriminative power: energy loss, psychomotor retardation, appetite changes, and loss of insight. Previous studies, with few exceptions,35 have focused on using EEG features to predict response or remission, which are defined by differences in summed symptom scores,24,36,37 and have yielded mixed outcomes.20,22 Electroencephalographic features that predict the change in summed symptom scores may not be replicated across populations of depression in which the primary depressive symptoms are highly heterogenous; thus, our findings offer an indication that the use of individual symptoms may be one means to address the replication gap in evaluating the potential value of EEG biomarkers of treatment outcomes in future studies. This approach might also help determine if EEG features add value to the previous suggestion that symptoms may have a differential rate of improvement.10,13

    Our results expand our growing knowledge of the neurobiology of depression by revealing the relative importance of specific EEG markers in predicting treatment-associated changes in specific symptom domains beyond the association of baseline symptoms alone. In particular, we observed that prediction of treatment-associated changes in psychomotor retardation, energy loss, appetite changes, and loss of insight are improved significantly with the inclusion of EEG features, with parietal alpha power providing the largest association for psychomotor retardation, parietal delta power providing the largest association for energy loss, frontal alpha power providing the largest association for appetite changes, and occipital delta power providing the largest association for loss of insight. These associations of baseline EEG markers build on findings for the implication of EEG marker abnormalities in depression and point to future lines of investigation for treatment trials. For example, hedonic hunger signals and altered eating behaviors have been previously associated with frontal alpha power38; our finding that occipital delta power is substantially associated with improvement in the symptom of loss of insight is in accordance with prior work showing altered delta power in depression.39,40 Loss of insight is implicated in higher risks of suicide and self-harm41 and delayed treatment seeking42-45; in this context, we speculate that knowing about pretreatment delta power might be of use in identifying an important feature for treatment in patients at risk of a poor prognosis. Energy loss and psychomotor retardation are also implicated in anhedonic forms of depression that have a poor prognosis. Together, these findings suggest that changes in specific pretreatment EEG features are not just implicated in the pathophysiological characteristics of depression, but may be associated with antidepressant response in specific symptoms. Our models therefore generate testable hypotheses about the potential mechanisms of symptom change over time that may be tested in future studies.

    In our exploratory analyses, we did not find evidence that the inclusion of treatment group significantly improved model performance. This finding suggests that the EEG markers associated with changes in symptom scores were general predictors of treatment outcome rather than differentiating response among the treatment types. In a previous functional neuroimaging study of a subset of this sample, resting-state predictors were also robust, general predictors of treatment outcome.46 By contrast, specific task-evoked markers have been found to be differential predictors of response to different treatments.47,48 Therefore, future studies may investigate task-evoked EEG markers in determining differential treatment response.

    Although EEG offers one of the most proximal measures of neural function, there have been barriers to its use as a pertinent objective predictor of antidepressant response. Foundational studies using EEG markers for the prediction of depression treatment response have necessarily relied on small samples, with insufficient power for estimating the robustness of predictive models.26,35-37 A recent meta-analysis reported that only 6 of 71 studies of EEG markers and antidepressant outcomes were studied with cross-validation or another out-of-sample verification.17 As the field develops, and the opportunity for acquiring larger samples becomes feasible, we can further address the understandable power constraints of these foundational studies. Prior treatment studies have also understandably focused on response outcomes based on averaged symptom ratings. It is notable that prediction by EEG markers in our model was specific to individual symptoms. Evaluation of individual symptoms (rather than summed severity scores) may thus be valuable in the future application of machine learning with biomarkers such as those derived from EEG recordings. Because direct symptom measurement is increasingly included as a routine part of clinical psychiatry,49 it is feasible to consider how clinicians of the future will have access to symptom profiles linked to biomarkers through machine learning algorithms. A first-use case might be for detection of high-risk patients; for example, those with symptoms such as loss of touch with reality (loss of insight, and unreality and nihilism) are included in primary care guidelines as an indication of elevated suicide risk41 and for which same-day mental health care is recommended.

    Regarding clinical applications in treatment management, our models provide a first proof of principle that noninvasive neurobiological markers and pretreatment symptom assessments may be used to determine whether specific symptom domains are likely to persist with standard antidepressant treatment. Currently, only approximately 30% of patients recover with the first antidepressant treatment attempted, and approximately only one-half of patients show some symptom response.29 Physicians lack algorithmic support for determining who will respond to available treatments, as well as a means to select between them. To reduce patients’ burden of trying multiple rounds of unsuccessful treatments (often associated with worsening of symptom severity), models such as ours, when validated in prospective clinical settings, could be used to predict outcomes ahead of time. Future studies may attempt to recruit individuals with a more constrained definition of baseline severity in specific symptom domains (eg, balanced samples with exceptionally high or low scores on 1 symptom domain) to determine more directly the maximum additional benefit of EEG markers once the variance of baseline severity has been more constrained. These results bring us closer to a future of using predictive models to guide individualized treatment strategies on the basis of specific symptom domains in combination with objective markers.

    Limitations

    This study has several important limitations. First, we only explored the interactions of markers from EEGs recorded with eyes closed; this decision was based on previous literature, but using EEGs recorded with eyes open is an area of further investigation. Second, while we found that the model was a general predictor of response across treatments, we did not perform a subgroup analysis of performance on each treatment or analyze the performance of models separately trained on each treatment, which may be able to capture adverse effects associated with certain antidepressants. Third, we did not evaluate the performance of our algorithm for other treatments for depression (such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, for which EEG markers may also be able to predict response)17 or for treatments that add a second medication to an initial, ineffective antidepressant drug.42 Fourth, the absence of a placebo means that we are unable to determine with our present models whether the changes in symptoms observed are specifically caused by the antidepressant treatments used, but future studies may use our modeling approach to address this possibility in placebo-controlled trials. Fifth, our models have been validated retrospectively, and on the same data set (iSPOT-D) that the model has been developed, necessarily given the limited availability of large data sets with pretreatment EEG recordings with associated pretreatment and posttreatment scores. Future studies should investigate the utility of ElecTreeScore in prospective data sets to advance the translational goal of application for clinical use.

    Conclusions

    A machine learning model was developed to predict improvement of specific symptoms associated with antidepressants using symptom ratings and EEG measures acquired at the pretreatment baseline. We found that the model had high discriminative performance for identifying improvement in specific symptoms, reflected in high C index scores of 0.8 or higher on 12 of 21 clinician-rated symptoms. The most important feature in the prediction of symptom improvements was the symptom score at baseline, whereas EEG features had smaller but meaningful associations with the prediction of specific symptom improvements. Overall, our findings build on prior work in 2 key ways: first, by demonstrating that predictive models can capitalize on established roles for using EEG markers to quantify neural activity in psychiatric illness to predict treatment-associated changes over time, and second, by explicitly using individual symptoms as independent outcome variables, to parse the extreme heterogeneity of major depression. Future work should investigate the performance of this model prospectively and in application of independent samples and clinical settings.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: March 21, 2020.

    Published: June 22, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.6653

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Rajpurkar P et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Leanne M. Williams, PhD, Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94305 (leawilliams@stanford.edu).

    Author Contributions: Mrs Rajpurkar and Dr Williams had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Mrs Rajpurkar and Yang contributed equally to this work.

    Concept and design: Rajpurkar, Yang, Dass, Basu, Ng, Williams.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Rajpurkar, Yang, Vale, Keller, Irvin, Taylor, Williams.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Rajpurkar, Dass, Vale, Williams.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Yang, Keller, Irvin, Taylor, Basu, Ng, Williams.

    Statistical analysis: Yang, Dass, Vale, Basu.

    Obtained funding: Williams.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Irvin, Taylor, Williams.

    Supervision: Basu, Ng, Williams.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms Keller reported receiving grants from National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr Basu reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, US Department of Agriculture, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; personal fees from Research Triangle Institute, Collective Health, HealthRight 360, KPMG, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr Ng reported receiving fees from Woebot Labs Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Williams reported receiving funding from Brain Resource Company Inc for data acquisition for the study; personal fees from BlackThorn Therapeutics and Psyberguide, One Mind Institute outside the submitted work; and serving on the Scientific Advisory Board for Psyberguide, a project of the One Mind Institute. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was sponsored by the Brain Resource Company Ltd.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had a role in design and conduct of the study. However, the sponsor had no role in the conceptualization of the question; analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. These scientific processes were overseen by an independent scientific publication committee.

    Additional Contributions: Claire Day, PhD, University of Sydney, was the Global Study coordinator; she was compensated for her contribution. We thank the study participants for participating in this study. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the coinvestigators at each site where clinical and electroencephalographic data were acquired.

    References
    1.
    Vos  T, Barber  RM, Bell  B,  et al; Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators.  Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.   Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743-800. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Rush  AJ, Kraemer  HC, Sackeim  HA,  et al; ACNP Task Force.  Report by the ACNP Task Force on response and remission in major depressive disorder.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(9):1841-1853. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301131 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Ferguson  JM.  SSRI antidepressant medications: adverse effects and tolerability.   Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;3(1):22-27. doi:10.4088/PCC.v03n0105 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Hamilton  M.  A rating scale for depression.   J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56-62. doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Hamilton  M. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. In: Sartorius  N, Ban  TA, eds.  Assessment of Depression. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1986:143-152. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70486-4_14
    6.
    Bock  RD, Gibbons  R, Muraki  E.  Full-information item factor analysis.   Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;3:261-280. doi:10.1177/014662168801200305 Google ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Evans  KR, Sills  T, DeBrota  DJ, Gelwicks  S, Engelhardt  N, Santor  D.  An item response analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale using shared data from two pharmaceutical companies.   J Psychiatr Res. 2004;38(3):275-284. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2003.11.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Bagby  RM, Ryder  AG, Schuller  DR, Marshall  MB.  The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight?   Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(12):2163-2177. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Fried  EI, Nesse  RM, Zivin  K, Guille  C, Sen  S.  Depression is more than the sum score of its parts: individual DSM symptoms have different risk factors.   Psychol Med. 2014;44(10):2067-2076. doi:10.1017/S0033291713002900 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Fried  EI, Nesse  RM.  Depression sum-scores don’t add up: why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential.   BMC Med. 2015;13(1):72. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Tenke  CE, Kayser  J, Manna  CG,  et al.  Current source density measures of electroencephalographic alpha predict antidepressant treatment response.   Biol Psychiatry. 2011;70(4):388-394. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.02.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Jaworska  N, Wang  H, Smith  DM, Blier  P, Knott  V, Protzner  AB.  Pre-treatment EEG signal variability is associated with treatment success in depression.   Neuroimage Clin. 2017;17:368-377. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Kennedy  SH.  Core symptoms of major depressive disorder: relevance to diagnosis and treatment.   Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2008;10(3):271-277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    14.
    Korb  AS, Hunter  AM, Cook  IA, Leuchter  AF.  Rostral anterior cingulate cortex theta current density and response to antidepressants and placebo in major depression.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(7):1313-1319. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.05.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Cook  IA, Hunter  AM, Abrams  M, Siegman  B, Leuchter  AF.  Midline and right frontal brain function as a physiologic biomarker of remission in major depression.   Psychiatry Res. 2009;174(2):152-157. doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.04.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Blackford  JU.  Leveraging statistical methods to improve validity and reproducibility of research findings.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(2):119-120. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3730 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Widge  AS, Bilge  MT, Montana  R,  et al.  Electroencephalographic biomarkers for treatment response prediction in major depressive illness: a meta-analysis.   Am J Psychiatry. 2019;176(1):44-56. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17121358 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Arns  M, Drinkenburg  WH, Fitzgerald  PB, Kenemans  JL.  Neurophysiological predictors of non-response to rTMS in depression.   Brain Stimul. 2012;5(4):569-576. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Iosifescu  DV, Greenwald  S, Devlin  P,  et al.  Frontal EEG predictors of treatment outcome in major depressive disorder.   Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;19(11):772-777. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2009.06.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Spronk  D, Arns  M, Barnett  KJ, Cooper  NJ, Gordon  E.  An investigation of EEG, genetic and cognitive markers of treatment response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depressive disorder: a pilot study.   J Affect Disord. 2011;128(1-2):41-48. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Bruder  GE, Sedoruk  JP, Stewart  JW, McGrath  PJ, Quitkin  FM, Tenke  CE.  Electroencephalographic alpha measures predict therapeutic response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant: pre- and post-treatment findings.   Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1171-1177. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.10.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Arns  M, Bruder  G, Hegerl  U,  et al.  EEG alpha asymmetry as a gender-specific predictor of outcome to acute treatment with different antidepressant medications in the randomized iSPOT-D study.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(1):509-519. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.05.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    van der Vinne  N, Vollebregt  MA, Boutros  NN, Fallahpour  K, van Putten  MJAM, Arns  M.  Normalization of EEG in depression after antidepressant treatment with sertraline? A preliminary report.   J Affect Disord. 2019;259:67-72. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Arns  M, Gordon  E, Boutros  NN.  EEG abnormalities are associated with poorer depressive symptom outcomes with escitalopram and venlafaxine-XR, but not sertraline: results from the multicenter randomized iSPOT-D Study.   Clin EEG Neurosci. 2017;48(1):33-40. doi:10.1177/1550059415621435 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Baskaran  A, Farzan  F, Milev  R,  et al; CAN-BIND Investigators Team.  The comparative effectiveness of electroencephalographic indices in predicting response to escitalopram therapy in depression: a pilot study.   J Affect Disord. 2018;227:542-549. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Khodayari-Rostamabad  A, Hasey  GM, Maccrimmon  DJ, Reilly  JP, de Bruin  H.  A pilot study to determine whether machine learning methodologies using pre-treatment electroencephalography can predict the symptomatic response to clozapine therapy.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(12):1998-2006. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2010.05.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Williams  LM, Rush  AJ, Koslow  SH,  et al.  International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment for Depression (iSPOT-D), a randomized clinical trial: rationale and protocol.   Trials. 2011;12:4. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Saveanu  R, Etkin  A, Duchemin  A-M,  et al.  The international Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression (iSPOT-D): outcomes from the acute phase of antidepressant treatment.   J Psychiatr Res. 2015;61:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.12.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Shilyansky  C, Williams  LM, Gyurak  A, Harris  A, Usherwood  T, Etkin  A.  Effect of antidepressant treatment on cognitive impairments associated with depression: a randomised longitudinal study.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(5):425-435. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00012-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Friedman  JH.  Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine.   Ann Stat. 2001;29(5):1189-1232. doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451Google ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Friedman  J, Hastie  T, Tibshirani  R.  Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (with discussion and a rejoinder by the authors).   Ann Stat. 2000;28(2):337-407. doi:10.1214/aos/1016218223Google ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Harrell  FE  Jr, Lee  KL, Mark  DB.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.   Stat Med. 1996;15(4):361-387. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Lundberg SM, Su-In L. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Preprint. Last revised November 25, 2017. arXiv 1705.07874v2.PubMed
    35.
    Iosifescu  DV, Greenwald  S, Devlin  P,  et al.  Pretreatment frontal EEG and changes in suicidal ideation during SSRI treatment in major depressive disorder.   Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008;117(4):271-276. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01156.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Khodayari-Rostamabad  A, Reilly  JP, Hasey  GM, de Bruin  H, Maccrimmon  DJ.  A machine learning approach using EEG data to predict response to SSRI treatment for major depressive disorder.   Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124(10):1975-1985. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Jaworska  N, de la Salle  S, Ibrahim  M-H, Blier  P, Knott  V.  Leveraging machine learning approaches for predicting antidepressant treatment response using electroencephalography (EEG) and clinical data.   Front Psychiatry. 2019;9:768. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00768 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Winter  SR, Feig  EH, Kounios  J, Erickson  B, Berkowitz  S, Lowe  MR.  The relation of hedonic hunger and restrained eating to lateralized frontal activation.   Physiol Behav. 2016;163:64-69. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.04.050 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Armitage  R, Emslie  GJ, Hoffmann  RF, Rintelmann  J, Rush  AJ.  Delta sleep EEG in depressed adolescent females and healthy controls.   J Affect Disord. 2001;63(1-3):139-148. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00194-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Renaldi  R, Kim  M, Lee  TH, Kwak  YB, Tanra  AJ, Kwon  JS.  Predicting symptomatic and functional improvements over 1 year in patients with first-episode psychosis using resting-state electroencephalography.   Psychiatry Investig. 2019;16(9):695-703. doi:10.30773/pi.2019.06.20.1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Depression, adult in primary care. Accessed September 25, 2019. https://www.icsi.org/guideline/depression/
    42.
    Rush  AJ, Trivedi  MH, Wisniewski  SR,  et al; STAR*D Study Team.  Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.   N Engl J Med. 2006;354(12):1231-1242. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa052963PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Fleming  SK, Blasey  C, Schatzberg  AF.  Neuropsychological correlates of psychotic features in major depressive disorders: a review and meta-analysis.   J Psychiatr Res. 2004;38(1):27-35. doi:10.1016/S0022-3956(03)00100-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Rothschild  AJ.  Challenges in the treatment of depression with psychotic features.   Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(8):680-690. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01747-X PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Vythilingam  M, Chen  J, Bremner  JD, Mazure  CM, Maciejewski  PK, Nelson  JC.  Psychotic depression and mortality.   Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(3):574-576. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.3.574 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Goldstein-Piekarski  AN, Staveland  BR, Ball  TM, Yesavage  J, Korgaonkar  MS, Williams  LM.  Intrinsic functional connectivity predicts remission on antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial to identify clinically applicable imaging biomarkers.   Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8(1):57. doi:10.1038/s41398-018-0100-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Williams  LM, Korgaonkar  MS, Song  YC,  et al.  Amygdala reactivity to emotional faces in the prediction of general and medication-specific responses to antidepressant treatment in the randomized iSPOT-D trial.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(10):2398-2408. doi:10.1038/npp.2015.89 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Tozzi  L, Goldstein-Piekarski  AN, Korgaonkar  MS, Williams  LM.  Connectivity of the cognitive control network during response inhibition as a predictive and response biomarker in major depression: evidence from a randomized clinical trial.   Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(5):462-472. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.   J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×