- Review
- Open Access
- Published:
Depression summation-piles Don River't add up: why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential
BMC Medicine bulk 13, Clause enumerate:72 (2015) Summons this article
Abstract
Most measures of depressive disorder badness are founded on the number of according symptoms, and threshold scores are often used to separate individuals as sanguine or depressed. This method acting – and research results based on it – are valid if depression is a single condition, and all symptoms are equally worthy severeness indicators. Hera, we review a host of studies documenting that specific sad symptoms like sad mood, insomnia, concentration problems, and suicidal ideation are distinct phenomena that differ from each some other in important dimensions such atomic number 3 underlying biology, impact connected constipation, and risk factors. Furthermore, specific life events predict increases in particular depression symptoms, and there is evidence for direct causal links among symptoms. We suggest that the pervasive use of sum-scores to forecast depression hardship has obfuscated crucial insights and contributed to the lack of get on in distinguish research areas such arsenic identifying biomarkers and more efficacious antidepressants. The analysis of individual symptoms and their causal associations offers a mode forward. We offer specific suggestions with practical implications for future research.
Peer Follow-up reports
Background
"Now major depression has become a monolith, with the assumption that the diagnosis can be made merely on the number of depressive symptoms present tense […]. It may be politically important to unmitigated such simplifications to doctors in undiversified medical settings, only information technology is a roomy fiction."
– Goldberg, 2011, p. 227 [1]
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the nigh common psychiatric disorders, with an estimated lifetime prevalence rate in the USA of 16.2% [2]. It is the leading campaign of disability general, and one of the teetotum tierce causes of disease burden worldwide [3]. About 60% of individuals meeting criteria for MDD, arsenic delimited by the Identification and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) [4], report severe or really severe impairment of functioning [2] that highly compromises the capacity for mortal-care and independent living.
The severity of MDD is routinely estimated aside adding up severity scores for many another heterogenous symptoms to create a sum-nock, and threshold values for these sum-scores are commonly accustomed classify individuals as depressed surgery non depressed. This use of constructing sum-scores and collapsing individuals with different symptoms into one undifferentiated class is based on the effrontery that slump is a one-woman condition, and that all symptoms are interchangeable and equally good indicators. This review shows that this common practice discards much critical information about individual symptoms whose analysis can provide important insights.
Depression heterogeneity
In the DSM-5, MDD is characterized by ennead symptoms: 1. depressed mood; 2. markedly diminished interest or pleasure; 3. increase or decrease in either weight or appetence; 4. insomnia Oregon hypersomnia; 5. psychomotor agitation or retardation; 6. fatigue OR loss of DOE; 7. feelings of worthlessness operating room improper guilt; 8. diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecision; and 9. recurrent thoughts of death or recurrent suicidal ideation. To dispose for the diagnosis, an single must display cardinal OR more symptoms, one of which must be either depressed mood or anhedonia. Of line, all symptoms leave out the first contain sub-symptoms (e.g., diminished interest or pleasure). Moreover, three symptoms – sleep problems, weight/appetite problems, and cognitive content problems – encompass opposite features (insomnia vs. hypersomnia; weight/appetite amplification vs. loss; psychomotor deceleration vs. agitation). This leads to roughly 1,000 unique combinations of symptoms that all characterize for a diagnosis of MDD, some of which do non share a single symptom [5]. It is not surprising that symptom variability among individuals diagnosed with MDD is well-established [5-7].
Cutoff values based on sum-loads from rating scales such as the Beck Depression Stock-take (BDI) [8] operating theatre the Hamilton Rating Ordered series for Depression (HRSD) [9] are routinely used as the main criterion to enroll participants in search studies. While the DSM has a hierarchical structure that features two core symptoms, and spell symptoms have to cause important distress operating room impairment in important areas of functional for a diagnosis, these criteria are not accounted for in such scales, further acceleratory the heterogeneousness of depressed samples [5].
The following section reviews evidence underlining the importance of attending to detail depression symptoms. We then describe how the use of sum-scores obfuscates evidentiary insights in various domains, and paint a picture that this May help to explain slow progress in key research areas, much as characteristic biomarkers and much efficacious antidepressants. We conclude the review with a list of suggestions that have pragmatic research implications.
Review of symptom-based depression research
Wide search has described individual low symptoms; withal, the significance of individual symptoms has not been systematically reviewed previously. Hera, we describe how attending to specific symptoms has led to insights in research on biomarkers, antidepressant efficacy, depression endangerment factors, dickey psychological functioning, and causative effects among particular depression symptoms.
Symptom specificity in biomarker research
Despite extraordinary inquiry expenditures and stupendous genome-wide association studies, no pathognomonic biological markers of depression have been identified. This has been a major disappointment. In 1980, the DSM-III [10] preamble predicted that biomarkers associated with virtually diagnoses would be identified away the time the DSM-IV [11] appeared; 35 years and deuce DSM versions subsequently, and with the exception of some neurological disorders, not unmatchable biological mental testing for mental disorders was gear up for cellular inclusion in the criteria sets for the DSM-5, and non a single medicine diagnosing can live validated by laboratory or imaging biomarkers [12].
For depression explore, results are specifically disappointing. In a recent large genome-panoptic association study with 34,549 subjects, no single venue reached genome-wide-cut significance [13]. This is consistent with many other large genetic studies that have failed to key out any confirmed associations for MDD [14-17]. Studies predicting antidepressant reception by common genetic variants have led to likewise unsatisfying results [18].
The analysis of specific symptoms offers opportunities to investigate biological factors that may be related specific syndromes. Jang et al. [19] showed that 14 Great Depression symptoms differ from each other in their degree of heritability (h2 range, 0–35%). Somatic symptoms much as loss of appetite and loss of libido, as substantially as cognitions such as guiltiness or hopelessness (possibly reflecting heritable personality traits), showed higher heritability coefficients than unusual symptoms alike blackbal affect or weepiness. Some other study [20] revealed differential associations of symptoms with specific genetic polymorphisms; for exercise, the symptom 'middle insomnia' assessed by the HRSD was correlated with the GGCCGGGC haplotype in the first haplotype freeze of TPH1. In summation, a recent report of 7,500 Gemini the Twins identified trio genetic factors that exhibited pronounced differential gear associations with specific MDD symptoms [21]; the authors over that the "DSM-IV syndrome of MD[D] does not reverberate a uniform dimension of genetic liability" (p. 599). Guintivano and Brown [22] analyzed several independent samples of post-mortem brains and blood samples from living subjects to text file that 80% of the variation in united of the most relevant specific symptoms, dangerous conduct, could cost explained by how polymorphisms of the gene SKA2 interacted with anxiety and stress.
Moving away from genes and factor expression to hormones, the hypothesis that depressive disorder can be caused by inflammation has received considerable care in recent years [23,24]. However, prove shows that to a lesser degree one-half of the individuals diagnosed with depression exhibit elevated inflammatory markers [25], and elevated levels of cytokines are neither sensitive nor specific to MDD [26]. Furthermore, somatic symptoms such as sleep problems, appetence gain, and angle gain seem elevated in the context of firing [27-29], suggesting symptom specificity. A recent review acknowledges intragroup variability of MDD as main limitation of the enquiry on excitation and depression [26], and suggests that future analyses of distinct endophenotypes may move the subject forward.
In summary, individual low symptoms differ in their biological correlates. This underlines the heterogeneous nature of depression, which may in reverse explain the lack of progress in validating depression diagnosis with biomarkers. Analyzing associations between symptom summarise-slews and genetic markers tooshie only capture the shared genetic variance of all symptoms, which may be flat-growing. A symptom-based come near offers opportunities for future inquiry that could provide a potential partial explanation for the "mystery of lost heritability" [30] – the conundrum that taxonomic category genetic markers explain only small proportions of the variance level for genial disorders that are highly heritable. Specific markers May correlate better with unique symptoms fissiparous of diagnostic categories – genes dress not scan the DSM [31]. Studies on symptom-polymorphism associations instead of syndrome-pleomorphism associations, similar to the one conducted by Myung et aluminum. [20], may prove perceptive.
The impact of antidepressants connected specific symptoms
Various large meta-analyses of clinical trials have demonstrated that antidepressants outperform placebos in to a lesser degree half of the trials, and that clinically relevant improvements can be documented only for a minority of severely depressed patients [32-34]. Part of the difficulty may be that measuring antidepressant efficacy via amount-scores conceals important effects happening proper symptoms [35]. Little research has been conducted connected the effect of antidepressants on individual Depression symptoms compared to the mountain of literature on special English effects.
Significant side effects for both tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have prevalence rates of awake to 27% in nonsubjective trials [36,37], and common side effects include insomnia, hypersomnia, nervousness, anxiety, agitation, microseism, restlessness, fatigue, sleepiness, weight gain surgery weight red ink, increased or decreased appetite, hypertension, sexed dysfunction, waterless mouth, constipation, blurred vision, and sweating [38,39] (Table 1). Side effects vary crossways drugs, and some cause more benign effects in special domains. For instance, certain atypical antidepressants have a superior sexual side effect profile [40], and individuals treated with bupropion and Pamelor show decreased rates of weight gain [41].
Curiously, some of the common broadside effects reported by patients are the very symptoms that are used to measure depression (Table 1). This means that reductions in sum-scores thanks to belittled depression are concealed by increases in sum-scores caused by drug pull effects. In addition, the legal document all but commonly used in clinical trials is the HRSD which, compared to other depression scales such as the BDI, abounds in corporeal symptoms that resemble the side effect profile caused past antidepressant drug treatment [42].
The presence of particular symptoms has been used to predict handling response. Sleep in problems, e.g., reduce the efficacy of depression treatment [43]; patients with persistent insomnia are more than doubly Eastern Samoa credible to remain depressed [44], and insomnia can become prolonged despite successful resolve of depressive symptoms [45]. Other symptoms also fair discussion efficaciousness: anxiety symptoms reduce imprint remission rates, successful anxiety treatment prolongs depressive disorder remission [46-48], and loss of interest, diminished activity, and inability to make decisions predict poorer antidepressant drug answer [49].
The overlap of antidepressant drug lateral effects and depression symptoms provides a powerful reason for analyzing symptoms such atomic number 3 slant problems, sleep problems, Oregon sexy dysfunction individually from sum-scores. A elaborated analysis of how different antidepressants influence specific symptoms may improve our ability to determine antidepressant drug efficacy.
Danger factor heterogeneity
Risk factors identified for depression let in past episodes of low pressure [50], demographic variables such As age and sex [51,52], and personality traits so much atomic number 3 neurosis [53]. Statistical models use these and other risk factors to predict the presence operating theatre absence of depression.
However, risk factors dissent for varied symptoms as first demonstrated away Lux and Kendler [54], who analyzed the associations of 25 risk factors on 9 polar symptoms in a cross-sectional report of 1,015 individuals. The influence of endangerment factors differed well for contrasting symptoms in a pattern the authors found unmanageable to reconcile with the general practice of summing symptoms. In another large prospective study, risk of exposure factors for depression in medical residents showed strong differential impact on changes of depression symptoms complete time [55]. Restricting analyses to a sum-score recommended that women are at greater risk to develop depression during residency, but analyzing individual symptoms revealed that male residents were more likely to know elevated levels of suicidal ideation under stress, whereas female study participants were more prone to develop increases in sleep out, appetite, and density problems besides as fatigue.
Unfavorable life events are well-established risk factors for depression [56], and the depressive disorder symptoms individuals feel for afterwards a life result seem to reckon along the nature of the event. In one enquiry study, as well as different crossbreeding-sectional and longitudinal investigations of college students and adult samples [57-61], specific types of life events were associated with distinct patterns of gloomy symptoms. For example, later on a romantic dissolution, individuals in the main experienced depressed mood and feelings of guiltiness, whereas degenerative stress was associated with fatigue and hypersomnia [59].
Overall, risk factors take issue substantially for different depressive symptoms, and aggregate-scores obscure so much insights. Studying the etiology of specific depression symptoms Crataegus oxycantha enable the exploitation of personalized prevention that focuses happening proper problems and symptoms before they transition into a full-fledged depressive episode.
MDD symptoms differentially impact on functioning
Most thin individuals suffer from severe functional impairment in various domains of living such as home life, work, or mob [2,62]. Their impairment is often long-lived and equal to that caused past other chronic health chec conditions so much as diabetes or symptom heart failure [63,64]. The question of whether soul depression symptoms differentially vitiate psychosocial performance is therefore of great grandness.
In a study of 3,703 low outpatients, DSM-5 criterion symptoms varied considerably in their associations with impairment [65]. Sad mood explained 20.9% of the explained variance of broken functioning, but hypersomnia only contributed 0.9%. Symptoms also differed in their impacts across stultification subdomains. For example, interest expiration had high impact on interpersonal activities, whereas fatigue most hard impacted home direction. The overall findings are consistent with an earlier study documenting differential gear encroachment of DSM-III criterion symptoms of clinical depression on functioning [66].
While these results require replication in different samples, they offer further evidence for the value of considering depression symptoms separately. Not all symptoms bring equally to severity ratings, and deuce individuals with similar sum-scores may suffer from dramatically different levels of harm.
Causal associations among symptoms
Mensuration depression severity by core-rafts of symptoms ignores a plethora of information pertaining to the intra-individual development of depression, including the power of individual symptoms to cause other symptoms.
Insomnia, for good example, leads to psychomotor impairment [67], cognitive impairment [68], fatigue [69], low mood [70], and unsafe ideation or effective suicide [71] – symptoms that tight resemble DSM characteristic criteria for depression (psychomotor problems; fatigue; reduced ability to imagine or concentrate, or irresolution; suicidal ideation). A meta-analysis of laboratory-based sleep loss studies referenced the strength of these effects: sleep-deprived subjects performed 0.87 standard deviations (SD) lower than the restraint aggroup on psychomotor tasks, 1.55 SD lower along cognitive tasks, and rumored mood 3.16 Coyote State glower than the control group. Collapsing over entirely three measures, performance of sleep-deprived subjects at the 50Thursday percentile in their group was equivalent to subjects at the 9th percentile in the control group [72]. Other recent meta-analytic thinking revealed that psychiatrical patients with sleep disturbances are about twice as likely to report suicidal behaviors compared to patients without sleep problems, a determination that generalized across various conditions including MDD, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and schizophrenia [73].
Hopelessness describes negative expectancies almost the future [74]. Although not part of the DSM-5 MDD criteria, it plays a leading role in the cognitive triad in the beginning represented by Beck [75], performs much powerfully than some DSM symptoms in distinguishing depressed from healthy individuals [76], and is assessed in various scales. Numerous studies have confirmed the prognostic role of hopelessness for unsafe ideation and suicide [71]. The effects are long-reach: hopelessness expected suicidal thoughts, attempts, and factual suicide up to 13 years into the future in a large community sample [77], and was known as a predictor of suicide among psychiatric patients followed for up to 20 old age [78]. The association of hopelessness and suicide generalizes from depressed individuals to patients with other psychiatric conditions [79,80], once more underlining symptom specificity disregardless of a given diagnosis. Hopelessness predicts self-annihilation improve than the sum-nock from an stocktaking assessing dual depressive symptoms [80], and mediates the effect of rumination on self-destructive ideation and opposite depressive symptoms in children and undergraduates [81,82]. In adolescents, rumination predicts the growing of subsequent symptoms of depression, bulimia, and kernel abuse, while clinical depression and binge-eating syndrome symptoms successively predict increases in rumination [82,83]. Symptoms are associated in colonial dynamic networks that can conformation vicious circles which transcend any ad hoc diagnosis, a whimsey that is as wel financed by recently formed person-report methods demonstrating complex interactions among symptoms [84,85].
In contrast to long studies that span months or days, feel sampling methods that provid the depth psychology of a large figure of timepoints over a comparably short timeframe have consistently revealed short-terminus associations among depression symptoms (for a review, see [86]). For illustration, sleep late quality predicted affect during the adjacent day in a taste of 621 women, while daytime affect was not related to consequent night-time sleep quality [70], implying a clear direction of causation. Complementing such aggroup-level analyses with longitudinal idiographic studies is likely to contribute important information. Bringmann et al. [87] documented differences among down patients in the manner their emotions impacted each other across meter; for instance, they institute the autoregressive coefficient of rumination to diverge substantially across participants – rumination at a inclined timepoint strongly predicted rumination at the next timepoint for some individuals but not for others. Another study identified heterogeneity in the focal point of causation between depression symptoms and somatogenetic activity [88]. Overall, a growing chorus of voices advocates the study of entomb-single differences [89-91] which may pave the way towards the ontogenesis of more personalized discussion approaches. Heterogeneity may also facilitate to resolve controversies about how some symptoms cause others. Sleep loss, for example, has rapid mood-enhancing effects in some dispirited patients [92], merely other reports suggest that nap difficulties cause abject mood [70].
The notion that symptoms initiation, shape, or maintain other symptoms is wide recognized in clinical use. A John R. Major goal in cognitive therapy is trying to breakage causative links between different MDD symptoms [75] and approaches like mindfulness-based cognitive therapy suggest that stopping rumination prevents information technology from causing other depression symptoms [93]. Kim and Ahn [94] demonstrated that causally central slump symptoms (symptoms that trigger more unusual symptoms) are judged to be more typical symptoms of depression by clinicians, are recalled with greater accuracy than peripheral symptoms, and are more likely to result in an MDD diagnosing. The authors concluded that clinicians think about causal networks of symptoms in shipway uttermost more sophisticated than the atheoretical DSM draw near of counting symptoms.
Psychometric evidence
Psychometric techniques such as factor analysis (grouping symptoms) and latent class analysis (grouping individuals) are usually accustomed address heterogeneity of MDD. In a to a greater extent detailed word of these methods we draw two general conclusions, both of which confirm the study of unshared symptoms [5].
First, extensive efforts to identify specific forms of treatment effective for specific depression subtypes have been disappointing. There has been miniature agreement about the number and nature of Depression subtypes [95-98], and limited succeeder in identifying external validators for subtypes [99-102]. A modern tabular limited review that compared the results of 34 agent and possible class analyses concluded that they did not provide evidence for valid subtypes of MDD [95], suggesting the analysis of individual symptoms.
Second, most rating scales for depression are multifactorial and do not measure one subjacent factor [103-105]. However, person symptoms are often at to the lowest degree moderately inter-correlated [106], and the first cistron – often a general mood factor or higher-order component – explains substantially much variance than subsequent factors [103,107]. This means that sum-scores certainly carry information or so the universal psychopathological load of a particular person, but that the approximation may be fairly coarse-textured and that summing symptoms may ignore important information [5,108] (for example, because MDD symptoms are differentially impairing [65] and because sum-scores do not take into account reciprocative interactions of symptoms [108]).
Applying psychometric tools such American Samoa item reception theory (IRT) and geomorphologic equation modeling (SEM) can yield important insights on the level of individual symptoms because they allow the test of verbatim relationships between symptoms and inexplicit dimensions. One example technique that helps to understand such relations is differential item functioning; a antecedent study testing for this revealed that different MDD risk of infection factors, such as neuroticism or contrary biography events, impact along circumstantial depression symptoms, implying that symptoms are 'biased' towards certain put on the line factors [55]. A minute practical application is research on res dependencies. A prima assumption of IRT and SEM models is that the underlying latent variables fully explain the coefficient of correlation of the manifest indicators. This is rarely the case [109], and particularly remote in the context of MDD, seeing that symptoms influence to each one another directly [86,110]. Ignoring so much residual dependencies unaccounted for away the latent variables, however, can substantially diagonal inferences [109,111].
Practical research implications
Some would defend the impression that depression is a self-colored, distinct disease. Nonetheless, research on depression loosely assigns individuals with diverse symptoms to the same disease category, and the search for potential causes then proceeds as if depression is a distinct disease entity, similar to rubeola or tuberculosis. This could help to explain the inability to find biomarkers or other foreign variables that can validate the diagnosis of depression [112-116].
Wide-spread reliance along sum-oodles exacerbates the trouble. Because depression symptoms are understood as interchangeable indicators of MDD, they are counted or else of existence analyzed [54,109]. American Samoa we have shown above, however, symptoms are not equivalent, and sum-scores add apples and oranges. As a result, deuce individuals with equal sum-scores May have clinical conditions whose severities differ drastically. This does not deny the possibility that a fundamental mechanism may turn on multiple aspects of depression in some depressed individuals; that obviously occurs, e.g., as a result of interferon discussion that can cause anhedonia, concentration problems, fatigue, and log Z's problems [117]. The depth psychology of single symptoms is nonetheless presumptive to reveal patterns that are currently neglected.
We resolve with a list of practical symptom-supported implications that could advance depression research:
- i)
Analyze apiece symptom singly
- ii)
Assess non-DSM symptoms
- iii)
Distinguish between grinder-symptoms
- iv)
Measure symptoms more objectively
- v)
Assess symptoms across diagnoses
- half dozen)
Improve reliableness of assessment
- vii)
Use multiple scales to assess symptoms
- viii)
Investigate networks of symptom interactions
- ennea)
Inquire symptom profiles in clinical trials
Improved measurement of MDD symptoms
The first group of search implications is for the measurement of depression symptoms. Afterward reviewing many depression rating scales, Snaith [42] concluded that "The measurement of 'depression' is as perplexed as the basic construct of the commonwealth itself" (p. 296). Below we explain wherefore this is the case, and paint a picture individual important steps that could reduce confusion.
Assessment of important non-DSM symptoms
First, expanding the range of symptoms analyzed may offer new insights. Today's DSM MDD criterion symptoms were determined largely by medical institution consensus instead of empirical show – one of the first projected sets of symptoms goes dorsum to the 1957 report by Cassidy [118], World Health Organization delineated clinical features of insane disorders. The tilt was reworked later by Feighner [119], without publicised data to support the changes. Today's criterion symptoms for MDD closely resemble the ones planned concluded 40 years ago, and numerous critical calls for a psychology (atomic number 75)evaluation of depression and its symptoms have had little impact (e.g., [54,76,120]). Anxiety and anger are especially fascinating symptoms for depression research; both are extremely prevalent in depressed patients and associated with worse clinical outcomes [46,121]. In a bulky clinical trial, over half of the depressed patients reportable large levels of anxiety, and remittance of depression was less likely and too took longer in this group [46]. Elevated baseline anxiety levels in treatment studies predict high depression levels later on [122], and anxiety was known as a risk symptom for adverse mental health trajectories in a large epidemiological study [123]. Anger is besides prevalent among depressed patients, and has been identified as a clinical marker of a more severe, degenerative, and coordination compound depression [121]. The newly published Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire includes a variety of non-DSM symptoms, such as see red and anxiety, and Crataegus oxycantha prove an important instrument for future research [124].
Distinguishing 'tween grinder-symptoms
Making more elaborate assessments of compound symptoms offers additional opportunities. Insomnia and hypersomnia are opposites; subsuming them into 'eternal rest problems' hampers progress. A past meta-analytic thinking disclosed that the ad hoc sleep problems of insomnia, parasomnia, and sleep-related breathing disorders, but not hypersomnia were related to suicidal doings across a comprehensive range of psychiatric conditions such as MDD, PTSD, and schizophrenia. Nightmares could also be included in future depression questionnaires, seeing that individuals suffering from nightmares showed a drastically elevated endangerment for suicidality [125]. Content problems pose yet another example, the impact of psychomotor retardation on harm of psychosocial running in the Sequenced Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study was four times greater than the impact of psychomotor agitation [65]. Outwear and sleepiness besides need differentiation. Eastern Samoa Ferentinos et al. [69] notice, "insomnia causes jade, while sleep apnea and narcolepsy cause mostly daytime sleepiness; fatigue is alleviated by lie, while sleepiness is relieved by sleep […]. Unfortunately, however, fatigue and sleepiness May sometimes be confounded in clinical practice, research, and psychometry" (p. 38).
Precise measurement of symptoms
The assessment of symptoms with higher precision offers further opportunities. More multiplex constructs, much as sadness, could be assessed with more one question. Self-report information can be augmented with objective data. Patient reports just about sleep quality prat be complemented by physiological data along sleep patterns and sleep in duration. Diaries can track sleep quality and burden changes, and impaired concentration can be sounded using tests such as the d2 Try out of Attention [126].
Transdiagnostic assessment of symptoms
Many symptoms are present in multiple disorders. Mental disorders, such as MDD, PTSD, Beaver State generalized anxiousness disorder, are highly comorbid [127] in part because they share defining symptoms such as sleep problems. Anxiety is prevalent among umteen psychiatric conditions. Fatigue is a symptomatic criterion for several DSM disorders, simply information technology also arises from many other medical conditions in slipway that can artificially increase slump rates in such populations [128]. These symptoms may thus not be especially useable for determining the presence of depression. Still, the transdiagnostic study of common psychopathological symptoms – e.g., the similarities and differences of fatigue across different conditions – may offer satisfying insights.
This mind as wel has implications for semi-structured interviews, such as the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders (SCID). In contrast to most scales, these instruments offer the opportunity to tax a large measure of symptoms from disparate diagnoses. However, it is currently unworkable to utilize data gathered via semi-organic interviews for symptom-based research delinquent to the skip questions. Skitter questions are a heuristic to carry through fourth dimension some for the interviewer and the interviewee: if an case-by-case reports none of the core symptoms requisite for a diagnosis (much American Samoa anhedonia and sad humour for MDD), all otherwise symptoms are skipped. Piece this speeds assessments, IT loses huge amounts of information astir specific symptoms. Researchers employing the Severe combined immunodeficiency disease and similar instruments who query subject area participants about all symptoms even in the petit mal epilepsy of center symptoms volition generate immodest new findings.
Dependableness of symptom measurement
One of the principal challenges for symptom-based research is dependably measuring symptoms. Common rating scales were often non planned or validated for exploitation symptom-level info. Instead, the assessment of symptoms was meant As measuring for an underlying disease [109]. This is an advantage of sum-scores: they include a number of at to the lowest degree moderately correlated symptoms, and are thus less hypersensitised to this measurement problem.
A practicable solution to growth the dependableness of symptom assessment for self-report questionnaires or clinical interviews is to follow the general psychometric practice of assessing variables of sake with more than one item. A good deterrent example is the Inventory of Depression and Anxiousness Symptoms that uses multiple questions per symptom land. For instance, suicidal tendencies are measured via 6 different items [129], allowing for a more reliable mensuration. If this became standard practice, information technology would likely reduce measurement error on the symptom horizontal.
Use of multiple depression scales
Finally, for studies that essential rely on symptom heart and soul-scores, different depression instruments should be used simultaneously, and conclusions should be considered cast-iron only they generalize crosswise different scales. Despite their aim to beat the aforesaid underlying construct, there are marked differences between different instruments for measuring depression. For instance, scales dissent in how they classify depressed patients into severity groups, so the scale chosen for a particular study can bias who qualifies for registration, and who achieves absolution [130]. Instruments also include a variety of different symptoms, and their sum-dozens are often lone somewhat correlated, suggesting that results may often cost individual to the particular scale used in a study [42,103,104,131]. In a reassessmen of 280 different low pressure scales, Santor et al. [131] ended that most research is based on just a few scales, such Eastern Samoa the HRSD and BDI, so much of what we love about depression depends on the caliber of these scales. This is negative newsworthiness, considering the low psychological science quality of the HRSD and BDI (poor inter-rater reliability, poor re-test reliability, underprivileged content validity, and poor psychological science performance of certain items) [104,105]. While much changes were made to the DSM criteria in the last decades, all but valuation scales used today are at least 20 years old (in the case of the HRSD, half a C) and answer non reflect these changes; most fare non fifty-fifty let in all nine DSM-5 standard symptoms [103].
Network models
While the more traditional SEM and IRT models assume that all depression symptoms share a common causal agent and are locally independent (i.e., unrelated beyond the common cause; see [109]), a growing number of studies have shown that symptoms can trigger some other symptoms. A recently developed theoretical account – the net approach to psychopathology – allows the canvass of much dynamic interactions. Network models estimation the relationships among symptoms inside or across meter [106,109,110], and fling a brand-new perspective on why symptoms cluster. While latent variable models explicate symptom covariation by a latent factor that is viewed as the common cause of all symptoms, network models suggest that syndromes are constituted by the connections among symptoms. This perspective encourages retainer of how vicious circles of symptoms can fire each other, an alternative to the schema in which each symptoms arise from a single brain disorder.
Coverage of symptom profiles
We forebode fundamental advances from researchers who report and analyze information almost specific symptoms. For example, contradictory reports about the efficacy of antidepressants may final result from samples with different symptom patterns that Crataegus laevigata reply differently to different agents. A meta-analysis to examination this hypothesis requires data on somebody symptoms that is non on hand in the Food and Dose Administration database of depression studies.
A recent report away Uher et AL. [132] suggests the available opportunities. The authors found that individuals with high baseline levels of systemic inflammation exhibited raised depressive disorder recovery under nortriptyline, spell low fervor levels were associated with superior imprint improvement under escitalopram, supporting earlier work connected the topic [133]. These results are especially exciting considering that inflammation levels are particularly elevated among depressed individuals with somatic symptoms [28], specifically appetence and weight unit gain [27]. If patients with high and low baseline inflammation levels exhibit contrastive symptoms, information technology should be possible to select study participants who wish react to a particular drug. Finding biological markers for taxonomic group depressive symptoms wish open new inquiry vistas.
Conclusions
Great Depression symptoms are commonly added capable create sum-dozens that are assumed to reflect the severeness of a uniform fundamental depression. This schema discards information about specific symptoms, treating all as equivalent and interchangeable indicators of MDD. It also fosters asking simplistic questions such as 'what causes slump?' or 'what treatment is best for depression?' Analyzing specific symptoms and their causal associations is an initial gradation towards personalized treatment of depression that recognizes the heterogeneousness of MDD. This is certainly more complicated than the study of sum-scores, simply well worth the effort. As John Tukey [134] pointed out, "Clarity in the large comes from clarity in the intermediate scale; clarity in the medium scale of measurement comes from clearness in the small. Pellucidity always comes with trouble" (p. 88).
Abbreviations
- BDI:
-
Beck Depression Inventory
- DSM:
-
Diagnostic and Statistical Non-automatic of Psychic Disorders
- HRSD:
-
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression
- IRT:
-
Point reception theory
- MDD:
-
Major depressive disorder
- PTSD:
-
Brand-traumatic stress unhinge
- Ace*D:
-
Sequenced Alternatives to Relieve Natural depression
- Severe combined immunodeficiency disease:
-
Structural Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders
- SEM:
-
Biological science equation modeling
References
- 1.
Goldberg D. The heterogeneity of "major depression". World Psychiatry. 2011;10:226–8.
- 2.
Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Koretz D, Merikangas KR, et aluminium. The epidemiology of major depressing unhinge: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). JAMA. 2003;289:3095–105.
- 3.
Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Judith Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global burden of disease and risk factors. Washington, DC: Existence Bank; 2006.
- 4.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Applied math Hand-operated of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Booker T. Washington, DC: APA; 2013.
- 5.
Fried EI, Nesse RM. Depression is not a logical syndrome: an investigation of unique symptom patterns in the STAR*D sketch. J Affect Disord. 2015;172:96–102.
- 6.
Zimmerman M, Ellison W, Whitney Young D, Chelminski I, Dalrymple K. How many contrastive ways do patients meet the designation criteria for major depressing disorder? Compr Psych. 2015;56:29–34.
- 7.
Olbert CM, Gala GJ, Tupler LA. Quantifying heterogeneity attributable to polythetic diagnostic criteria: speculative framework and empirical application. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:452–62.
- 8.
Beck A, Bullock RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Stocktaking: 25 eld of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988;8:77–100.
- 9.
Amy Lyon M. A paygrad graduated table for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56–62.
- 10.
American Psychiatric Connexion. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd erectile dysfunction. Washington, DC: APA; 1980.
- 11.
North American nation Psychiatric Association. The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: APA; 1994.
- 12.
Kapur S, Phillips AG, Insel TR. Why has it taken so long for biological psychiatry to train objective tests and what to do nearly it? Mole Psychiatry. 2012;17:1174–9.
- 13.
Hek K, Demirkan A, Lahti J, Terracciano A. A genome-wide association study of depressive symptoms. Biol Psychopathology. 2013;73:667–78.
- 14.
Meriwether Lewis Cm, Nanogram MY, Butler AW, Cohen-Woods S, Uher R, Pirlo K, et al. Genome-wide connection study of major recurrent depression in the UK population. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167:949–57.
- 15.
Wray NR, Pergadia ML, Blackwood DHR, Penninx BWJH, Gordon SD, Nyholt DR, et al. Genome-opened association study of major gloomy disorder: raw results, meta-analysis, and lessons learned. Mol Psychopathology. 2012;17:36–48.
- 16.
Shi J, Potash JB, Knowles JA, Weissman MM, Coryell W, Scheftner WA, et al. Genome-wide connection study of recurrent proterozoic-onset major depressive perturb. Gram molecule Psychiatry. 2011;16:193–201.
- 17.
Daly J, Ripke S, Harry Sinclair Lewis CM, Lin D, Wray NR, Neale B, et al. A mega-analysis of genome-fanlike tie studies for major depressing disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18:497–511.
- 18.
Tansey KE, Guipponi M, Perroud N, Bondolfi G, Domenici E, Evans D, et al. Genetic predictors of reply to serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants in Major depressive disquiet: a genome-wide analysis of individual-level data and a meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001326.
- 19.
Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Taylor S, Stein MB, Moon EC. Heritability of individual depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2004;80:125–33.
- 20.
Myung W, Song J, Lim S-W, Won H-H, Kim S, Lee Y, et al. Genetic tie-u study of individual symptoms in slump. Psychiatry Res. 2012;198:400–6.
- 21.
Kendler KS, Aggen SH, Neale MC. Evidence for multiple genetic factors underlying DSM-IV criteria for major depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;70:599–607.
- 22.
Guintivano J, Brown T. Identification and replication of a combined epigenetic and genetic biomarker predicting suicide and unsafe behaviors. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171:1287–96.
- 23.
Valkanova V, Ebmeier KP, Allan 150. CRP, IL-6 and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Strike Disord. 2013;150:736–44.
- 24.
Wium-Andersen MK, Orsted Doctor of Divinity, Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated C-reactive protein levels, scientific discipline distress, and depression in 73,131 individuals. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:176–84.
- 25.
Raison CL, Miller AH. Is depression an incendiary disorder? Curr Psychopathology Repp. 2011;13:467–75.
- 26.
Young JJ, St. Bruno D, Pomara N. A review of the relationship between proinflammatory cytokines and major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2014;169C:15–20.
- 27.
Lamers F, Vogelzangs N, Merikangas Communist Party of Kampuchea, de Jonge P, Beekman ATF, Penninx BWJH. Evidence for a differential role of HPA-bloc function, inflammation and biological process syndrome in melancholic versus atypical depression. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18:692–9.
- 28.
Duivis HE, Vogelzangs N, Kupper N, de Jonge P, Penninx BWJH. Differential tie-u of somatic and psychological feature symptoms of depression and anxiety with inflammation: findings from the Netherlands Work of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013;38:1573–85.
- 29.
Motivala SJ, Sarfatti A, Olmos L, Irwin MR. Instigative markers and sleep disturbance in major depression. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:187–94.
- 30.
Zuk O, Hechter E, Sunyaev SR, Lander ES. The mystery of missing heritability: genetic interactions make over spectr heritability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:1193–8.
- 31.
Stefanis N. Genes do not read DSM-IV: implications for psychosis classification. Ann Gen Psychological medicine. 2008;7:S68.
- 32.
Pigott HE, Leventhal AM, Alter GS, Boren JJ. Efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants: current status of research. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:267–79.
- 33.
Kirsch I, Protestant deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina Atomic number 65, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-depth psychology of data submitted to the Food and Dose Giving medication. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e45.
- 34.
Khan A, Khan S, Brown WA. Are placebo controls necessary to test new antidepressants and anxiolytics? Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2002;5:193–7.
- 35.
Bech P. Rating scales in slump: limitations and pitfalls. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8:207–15.
- 36.
Trindade E, Menon D, Topfer L, Coloma C. Adverse effects joint with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis. Arse Med Assoc J. 1998;159:1245–52.
- 37.
Bet PM, Hugtenburg JG, Penninx BWJH, Hoogendijk WJG. Side effects of antidepressants during semipermanent expend in a naturalistic setting. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;23:1443–51.
- 38.
Baldwin DS. Essential considerations when choosing a modern antidepressant. Int J Psychopathology Clin Pract. 2003;7:3–8.
- 39.
Rosse R, Fanous A, Gaskins B, Deutsch S. Side effects in the modern psychopharmacology of imprint. Prim Psych. 2007:14. http://primarypsychiatry.com/side-effects-in-the-modern-psychopharmacology-of-depression/.
- 40.
Serretti A, Chiesa A. Treatment-nascent sexual dysfunction related to antidepressants: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:259–66.
- 41.
Blumenthal SR, Castro VM, Clements CC, Rosenfield HR, Murphy SN, Fava M, et aluminium. An natural philosophy health records subject of long-term weight gain following antidepressant use. JAMA Psychopathology. 2014;71:889–96.
- 42.
Snaith P. What coif impression rating scales measure? Br J Psychological medicine. 1993;163:293–8.
- 43.
Dew MA, Reynolds Mucoviscidosis, Houck PR, Hall M, Buysse DJ, Weenie E, et al. Temporal profiles of the course of Depression during discourse. Predictors of pathways toward recovery in the elderly. Arch Gen Psychological medicine. 1997;54:1016–24.
- 44.
Pigeon WR, Hegel M, Unützer J, Fan M-Y, Sateia MJ, Lyness JM, et Alabama. Is insomnia a perpetuating factor for late-life depression in the IMPACT cohort? Sleep. 2008;31:481–8.
- 45.
Thase MME, Rush AJ, Manber R, Kornstein Seaborgium, Klein DN, Markowitz JC, et al. Differential effects of nefazodone and cognitive behavioral depth psychology system of psychotherapy along insomnia related with chronic forms of major depression. J Clin Psychological medicine. 2002;63:493–500.
- 46.
Fava M, Rush AJ, Alpert JE, Balasubramani GK, Wisniewski Steradian, Carmin CN, et al. Difference in treatment effect in outpatients with anxious versus nonanxious depression: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychological medicine. 2008;165:342–51.
- 47.
Shippee ND, Rosen BH, Angstman KB, Fuentes ME, DeJesus RS, Bruce Master of Science, et al. Baseline viewing tools as indicators for symptom outcomes and health services employment in a cooperative care model for depression in main care: a practice-based empirical study. Gen Hosp Psychological medicine. 2014;36:563–9.
- 48.
Wu Z, Chen J, Yuan C, Hong W, Peng D, Zhang C, et al. Difference in remission in a Formosan population with anxious versus nonanxious treatment-repellent Depression: a report of Performance study. J Affect Disord. 2013;150:834–9.
- 49.
Uher R, Perlis RH, Henigsberg N, Zobel A, Rietschel M, Mors O, et al. Imprint symptom dimensions as predictors of antidepressant treatment outcome: replicable evidence for interest-activenes symptoms. Psychol Med. 2012;42:967–80.
- 50.
Colman I, Naicker K, Zeng Y, Ataullahjan A, Senthilselvan A, Patten SB. Predictors of long prognosis of depression. Posterior Med Assoc J. 2011;183:1955–6.
- 51.
Piccinelli M. Gender differences in depression: critical review. Br J Psychological medicine. 2000;177:486–92.
- 52.
Kendler KS, Myers J, Prescott CA. Sexual urge differences in the relationship between social bear out and risk for major depression: a longitudinal study of opposite-sex couple pairs. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:250–6.
- 53.
Kendler KS, Kuhn J, Prescott Calif.. The interrelationship of neuroticism, gender, and trying lifetime events in the prediction of episodes of John Major Depression. Am J Psychological medicine. 2004;161:631–6.
- 54.
Lux V, Kendler Kansas. Deconstructing major depression: a substantiation study of the DSM-Quatern symptomatic criteria. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1679–90.
- 55.
Cooked EI, Nesse RM, Zivin K, Guille C, Sen S. Depression is more than the sum tally of its parts: individual DSM symptoms have different risk factors. Psychol MEd. 2014;44:2067–76.
- 56.
Hammen C. Stress and depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:293–319.
- 57.
Keller MC, Nesse RM. Is low mood an adaptation? Evidence for subtypes with symptoms that match precipitants. J Affect Disord. 2005;86:27–35.
- 58.
Keller MC, Nesse RM. The organic process meaning of depressive symptoms: different contrary situations lead to various depressive symptom patterns. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91:316–30.
- 59.
Helen Adams Keller MC, Neale MC, Kendler KS. Connexion of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:1521–9.
- 60.
Cramer AOJ, Borsboom D, Aggen SH, Kendler KS. The pathoplasticity of dysphoric episodes: operation impact of stressful life events along the blueprint of depressive symptom lay to rest-correlations. Psychol Med. 2013;42:957–65.
- 61.
Fried EI, Nesse RM, Guille C, Sen S. The differential tempt of life stress connected individual symptoms of depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015. Forward of publish.
- 62.
Hirschfeld RM, Dunner DL, Keitner G, Klein DN, Quran LM, Kornstein SG, et aliae. Does psychosocial operation improve independent of depressing symptoms? A comparison of nefazodone, psychotherapy, and their combination. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:123–33.
- 63.
Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e442.
- 64.
Murray River CJL, Lopez A. Global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and gamble factors in 1990 and planned to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University School of Public Health; 1996.
- 65.
Deep-fried EI, Nesse RM. The impact of individual depressive symptoms happening impairment of psychosocial functioning. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90311.
- 66.
Tweed DL. Depression-related impairment: estimating concurrent and tarriance effects. Psychol Master of Education. 1993;23:373–86.
- 67.
Fairclough SH, Graham R. Deterioration of driving performance caused by sleep deprivation or inebriant: a comparative study. Harkat ul-Ansar Factors. 1999;41:118–28.
- 68.
Durmer J, Dinges D. Neurocognitive consequences of sleep deprivation. Semin Neurol. 2005;25:117–29.
- 69.
Ferentinos P, Kontaxakis V, Havaki-Kontaxaki B, Paparrigopoulos T, Dikeos D, Ktonas P, et al.. Sleep disturbances in relation to fatigue in major depression. J Psychosom Res. 2009;66:37–42.
- 70.
De Wild-Hartmann JA, Wichers MC, van Bemmel AL, Derom C, Thiery E, Jacobs N, et al. Day-to-day associations between subjective sleep and affect in consider to future depression in a young-bearing population-based sample. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202:407–12.
- 71.
Fawcett J, Scheftner WA, Fogg L, Clark DC, Young MA, Hedeker D, et Heart of Dixie. Time-related predictors of suicide in major affective disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147:1189–94.
- 72.
Pilcher JJ, Huffcutt AI. Personal effects of sleep loss on functioning: a meta-analysis. Rest. 1996;19:318–26.
- 73.
Malik S, Kanwar A, Sim LA, Prokop LJ, Wang Z, Benkhadra K, et al. The association between sleep disturbances and suicidal behaviors in patients with psychiatric diagnoses: a orderly survey and meta-analysis. Syst Rev up. 2014;3:18.
- 74.
Abramson LY, Metalsky Gb, Alloy LB. Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychol Rev. 1989;96:358–72.
- 75.
Beck A, Rush AJ, Artie Shaw FS, Emery G. Psychological feature therapy of Depression. NY: Guilford Pressing; 1979.
- 76.
McGlinchey JB, Zimmerman M, Young D, Chelminski I. Diagnosing stellar saddening disorder VIII: are some symptoms better than others? J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194:785–90.
- 77.
Kuo W-H, Gallo JJ, Eaton WW. Hopelessness, depression, content perturb, and suicidality – a 13-year community-based take. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39:497–501.
- 78.
Brunette GK, Beck A, Steer Atomic number 88, Grisham JR. Risk factors for suicide in psychiatric outpatients: a 20-year prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:371–7.
- 79.
Klonsky Erectile dysfunction, Kotov R, Bakst S, Rabinowitz J, Bromet EJ. Hopelessness as a prognosticator of unsuccessful self-annihilation among first admittance patients with psychosis: a 10-year cohort study. Suicide Sprightliness Threat Behav. 2012;42:1–10.
- 80.
Beck A, Brown G, Berchick R. Relationship between hopelessness and ultimate suicide: a replication with psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147:190–5.
- 81.
Smith JM, Alloy LB, Abramson LY. Cognitive vulnerability to depression, thoughtfulness, hopelessness, and unsafe ideation: multiple pathways to mortal-injurious thinking. Self-destruction Life Threat Behav. 2006;36:443–54.
- 82.
Abela JRZ, Brozina K, Haigh EP. An examination of the response styles possibility of depression in fractional- and ordinal-grade children: a inadequate-term longitudinal study. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2002;30:515–27.
- 83.
Nolen-Hoeksema S, Stice E, Wade E, Bohon C. Reciprocal relations between reflection and bulimic, drug abuse, and depressive symptoms in female adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007;116:198–207.
- 84.
Frewen PA, Allen SL, Lanius RA, Neufeld RWJ. Sensed causal relations: novel methodological analysis for assessing client attributions about causal associations 'tween variables including symptoms and functional impairment. Appraisal. 2012;19:480–93.
- 85.
Frewen PA, Schmittmann Venus's curse, Bringmann LF, Borsboom D. Detected causative dealings between anxiousness, posttraumatic stress and natural depression: annexe to moderation, mediation, and network analysis. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2013;4:20656.
- 86.
Wichers MC. The dynamic nature of depression: a new micro-story perspective of mental disorder that meets current challenges. Psychol Med. 2013;616:1–12.
- 87.
Bringmann Low frequency, Vissers N, Wichers MC, Geschwind N, Kuppens P, Peeters F, et al. A network approach path to psychopathology: new insights into clinical longitudinal data. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60188.
- 88.
Rosmalen JGM, Wenting AMG, Roest AM, Delaware Jonge P, Bos EH. Revealing causal heterogeneousness using time series psychoanalysis of ambulatory assessments: application to the association between low and physical activeness after myocardial infarction. Psychosom Med. 2012;74:377–86.
- 89.
Hofmann SG. Toward a psychological feature-behavioral classification organisation for mental disorders. Behav Ther. 2014;45:576–87.
- 90.
Molenaar P. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the someone back into scientific psychological science, this metre forever. Measurement. 2004;2014:37–41.
- 91.
Hamaker EL. Why researchers should recall "inside-somebody": a paradigmatic rationale. In: Mehl M, Conner T, editors. Handbook of methods for perusal daily aliveness. New York, NY: Guilford Publications; 2012. p. 43–61.
- 92.
Peterson MJ, Benca RM. Sleep in modality disorders. Sleep Med Clin. 2008;3:231–49.
- 93.
Ma SH, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for Depression: replication and exploration of differential relapse prevention personal effects. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:31–40.
- 94.
Kim NS, Ahn W. Clinical psychologists' theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and retention. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002;131:451–76.
- 95.
Van Loo HM, DE Jonge P, Romeijn J-W, Kessler RC, Schoevers RA. Data-driven subtypes of major depressive disorder: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2012;10:156.
- 96.
Baumeister H, Hutter N, Bengel J, Härter M. Select of living in medically ill persons with comorbid mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom. 2011;80:275–86.
- 97.
Lichtenberg P, Belmaker RH. Subtyping major depressive disorder. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:131–5.
- 98.
Bech P. Struggle for subtypes in primary and secondary depression and their way-specific treatment or curative. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:331–8.
- 99.
Melartin T, Leskelä U, Rytsälä H, Sokero P, Lestelä-Mielonen P, Isometsä E. Atomic number 27-morbidity and stability of sad features in DSM-IV John Roy Major depressive disorder. Psychol Med. 2004;34:1443.
- 100.
Pae CU, Tharwani H, First Baron Marks of Broughton Decimetre, Masand PS, Patkar AA. Atypical depression: a spaciotemporal review. CNS Drugs. 2009;23:1023–37.
- 101.
Davidson JRT. A chronicle of the concept of atypical depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68:10–5.
- 102.
Young MA, Keller MB, Lavori PW, Scheftner WA, Fawcett JA, Endicott J, et al. Lack of stability of the RDC endogenous subtype in consecutive episodes of major depression. J Affect Disord. 1987;12:139–43.
- 103.
Shafer AB. Meta-analysis of the factor structures of four depression questionnaires: Beck, CES-D, Hamilton, and Zung. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62:123–46.
- 104.
Gullion Atomic number 96, Rush AJ. Toward a generalizable model of symptoms in major sad disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;44:959–72.
- 105.
Bagby RM, Ryder Atomic number 47, Schuller DR, Marshall MB. Reviews and overviews – the Hamilton Economic crisis Evaluation Scale: has the gold standard become a spark advance weight? Am J Psyc. 2004;161:2163–77.
- 106.
Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, van der Maas HLJ, Borsboom D. Comorbidity: a network perspective. Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:137–50. Discourse 150–93.
- 107.
Uher R, Farmer A, Maier W, Rietschel M, Hauser J, Marusic A, et al. Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP survey. Psychol Med. 2008;38:289–300.
- 108.
Faravelli C. Assessment of psychopathology. Psychother Psychosom. 2004;73:139–41.
- 109.
Schmittmann VD, Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, Epskamp S, Kievit Re, Borsboom D. Deconstructing the construct: a network perspective connected mental phenomena. New Ideas Psychol. 2013;31:43–53.
- 110.
Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ. Mesh analysis: an integrative approach to the social system of psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9:91–121.
- 111.
Braeken J. Modeling balance dependencies in latent variable models with copulas. KU Leuven: Leuven; 2008.
- 112.
Lilienfeld SO. DSM-5: centripetal scientific and centrifugal. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2014;21:269–79.
- 113.
Bird Parker G. Beyond major depression. Psychol Med. 2005;35:467–74.
- 114.
Costello C. The advantages of the symptom approach to depression. In: Costello C, editor. Symptoms of Depression. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1993. p. 1–21.
- 115.
Hasler G, Drevets WC, Manji HK, Charney DS. Discovering endophenotypes for major depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29:1765–81.
- 116.
Persons JB. The advantages of studying psychological phenomena rather than psychiatric diagnoses. Am Psychol. 1986;41:1252–60.
- 117.
Musselman D, Lawson D, Gumnick J, Manatunga A, Penna S, Goodkin R, et al. Paroxetine for the prevention of depression induced by high-dose interferon alfa. New Eng J Med. 2001;344:961–6.
- 118.
Cassidy WL, Planagan NB, Spellman M, Cohen Pine Tree State. Clinical observations in insane disease; a quantitative field of study of one hundred manic-depressive patients and fifty medically sick controls. J Am Master of Education Assoc. 1957;164:1535–46.
- 119.
Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, Sweet woodruff RA, Winokur G, Munoz R. Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychological medicine. 1972;26:57–63.
- 120.
Roy Chapman Andrews G, Slade T, Sunderland M, Anderson T. Issues for DSM-V: simplifying DSM-IV to heighten utility: the case of major depressive disarray. Am J Psychological medicine. 2007;164:1784–5.
- 121.
Judd LL, Schettler PJ, Coryell W, Akiskal HS, Fiedorowicz JG. Open irritability/wrath in unipolar major depressive episodes: past and current characteristics and implications for semipermanent path. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:1171–80.
- 122.
Gollan JK, Fava M, Kurian B, Wisniewski SR, Rush AJ, Daly E, et atomic number 13. What are the clinical implications of other onset or worsening anxiousness during the first two weeks of SSRI treatment for depression? Depress Anxiety. 2012;29:94–101.
- 123.
Van Loo HM, Cai T, Gruber MJ, Li J, Diamond State Jonge P, Petukhova M, et aluminium. John R. Major depressive disorder subtypes to betoken interminable-term track. Depress Anxiousness. 2014;13:1–13.
- 124.
Pedrelli P, Blais MA, Alpert JE, Shelton RC, Walker RSW, Fava M. Reliability and validness of the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ). CNS Spectr. 2014;19:535–46.
- 125.
Sjöström N, Waern M, Hetta J. Nightmares and sleep disturbances in relation to suicidality in suicide attempters. Sleep. 2007;30:91–5.
- 126.
Brickenkamp R, Zillmer E. The d2 Test of Attention. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 1998.
- 127.
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Prevalence, grimness, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the Nationalist Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychological medicine. 2005;62:617–27.
- 128.
Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, McGlinchey JB, Young D. Diagnosing major depressive disorder X: nates the public utility of the DSM-IV symptom criteria be improved? J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194:893–7.
- 129.
Watson D, O'Hara MW, Simms LJ, Kotov R, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez Ea, et al.. Development and validation of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiousness Symptoms (IDAS). Psychol Evaluate. 2007;19:253–68.
- 130.
Zimmerman M, Martinez JH, Friedman M, Boerescu D, Attiullah N, Toba C. How can we usage depression asperity to guide treatment selection when measures of depression categorize patients differently? J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73:1287–91.
- 131.
Santor DA, Gregus M, Welch A. Eight decades of mensuration in depression. Measurement. 2009;4:135–55.
- 132.
Uher R, Tansey KE, Dew T, Maier W, Mors O, Hauser J, et atomic number 13. An inflammatory biomarker atomic number 3 a differential predictor of outcome of depression treatment with escitalopram and Pamelor. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;1:1–9.
- 133.
Vogelzangs N, Duivis HE, Beekman Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Kluft C, Neuteboom J, Hoogendijk W, et al. Association of sad disorders, depression characteristics and antidepressant medication with kindling. Transl Psychiatry. 2012;2:e79.
- 134.
Tukey JW. Analyzing data: sanctification or detective work? Am Psychol. 1969;24:83–91.
Acknowledgements
EIF was supported in part by the Bunch up of Excellence 'Languages of Emotion' (EXC302), the Research Foundation Flanders (G.0806.13), the Belgian Federal Science Insurance policy within the framework of the Interuniversity Attraction Poles program (IAP/P7/06), and the Ulysses Simpson Grant Goa/15/003 from University of Leuven.
Author data
Affiliations
Corresponding writer
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to report.
Source's contributions
EIF initiated the report and reviewed the literature, EIF and RMN helped in drafting the newspaper. EIF and RMN bear seen and approved the final translation.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under license to BioMed Exchange Ltd. This is an Heart-to-heart Access clause scattered under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted utilisation, dispersion, and procreation in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributable. The Creative Commons Common Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/cardinal/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deep-fried, E.I., Nesse, R.M. Clinical depression heart-scores don't add up: why analyzing specialized depression symptoms is essential. BMC Med 13, 72 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4
-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4
Keywords
- Depression symptoms
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
- Heterogeneity
- Major clinical depression
- Nosology
one difficulty with a purely attributional explanation of depression
Source: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4
Posting Komentar