Back

Machine learning-optimized perinatal depression screening: Maximum impact, minimal burden

Hurwitz, E.; Shell, C.; Chugh, K.; Bergink, V.; Patel, R. C.; Schiller, C. E.; Haendel, M. A.

2025-10-17 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.10.13.25337771 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionPerinatal depression affects up to 30% of pregnant and postpartum women, which has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, making rapidly identifying affected women a high clinical priority. While screening tools like the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) are widely used, brevity is important for busy clinical practice to reduce administration time and patient burden. Current methods to shorten assessments rely on traditional psychometric approaches, rather than machine learning (ML) methods that could optimize predictive accuracy. MethodsWe developed a ML framework using National Clinical Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data to predict full 10-item EPDS scores from shortened question subsets (n=22,924). We evaluated all 2-5 item combinations using linear regression, validating performance across multiple cohorts including postpartum women (n=7,750) and an external non-N3C pregnancy population (n=1,217). For additional validation, we applied our approach to the PHQ-9 (n=398,606) to test generalizability. Binary classification models using clinical thresholds ([≥]13) determined EPDS screening accuracy. Decision curve analysis was performed to assess the clinical utility of our ML method. ResultsThe optimal 2-question EPDS combinations Q4+Q8 (anxiety/sadness) and Q5+Q8 (scared/sadness) both achieved R2=0.70. Binary classification demonstrated strong performance (sensitivity=0.68-0.72, specificity=0.98-0.99). The framework generalized across postpartum subsets, external pregnancy cohorts, and PHQ-9 validation (R2=0.64-0.73). Adding covariates did not improve performance. Decision curve analysis showed our ML approach had superior clinical benefit (0.01-0.03) versus traditional additive scoring. Conclusion/ImplicationsOur ML framework suggests a reduced assessment burden with two EPDS questions maintains predictive accuracy as the full-item EPDS. With [~]3.6 million annual U.S. births, this approach could identify additional positive perinatal depression screens, enhancing screening implementation across clinical settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.1%
2
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.4%
3
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.9%
4
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
6
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
8
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
14
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
15
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
16
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
17
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
21
Journal of Psychiatric Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
24
Biological Psychiatry
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
27
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
62 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Molecular Psychiatry
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
30
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%