Robust Speech and Natural Language Processing Models for Depression Screening

A. Harati; E. Shriberg; P. Chlebek; R. Oliveira; T. Rutowski; Y. Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Robust Speech and Natural Language Processing Models for Depression Screening

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two deep-learning models — one on voice acoustics, one on the words spoken — each separate depressed from non-depressed speakers at AUC close to or above 0.80 on people never seen in training, using only the speech itself.

desk verdict Large-scale, speaker-disjoint evaluation with believable AUCs, but the abstract rounds one number up and the external-validity claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19072 v1 pith:YQOKXIR3 submitted 2024-12-26 eess.AS cs.CL

Y. Lu , A. Harati , T. Rutowski , R. Oliveira , P. Chlebek , E. Shriberg This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.CL

keywords depressionscreeningspeech-baseddiagnosistransferlearningacousticmodelnaturallanguageprocessingPHQ-8conversationalspeechrobustness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that automated depression screening from ordinary conversational speech can be both accurate and stable across the differences found in real users. It trains two deep-learning models on a corpus of about 16,000 sessions from roughly 11,000 speakers who talked with a computer application about their lives, then tests them on speakers held out entirely from training. One model listens to acoustic-prosodic patterns in the voice; the other reads the words spoken; both are transfer-learning models that reach an area under the ROC curve (AUC) close to or above 0.80 for detecting depression, defined here as a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ-8 self-report questionnaire. The authors then split the test set by gender, age, ethnicity, smoking, marital status, location, and session timing, and find accuracy stays stable across nearly all of those groups, with a few exceptions for the acoustic model. If the claims hold, a remote screening tool could reach the accuracy of general practitioners using only a few minutes of a patient's voice or words, with no patient history, metadata, or video.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery. The first is the corpus: about 16,000 sessions from roughly 11,000 speakers of American English, each session labeled by the speaker's self-reported PHQ-8 score, with 10 or above mapped to the depressed class. Speakers are split so that no speaker appears in both training and test, and speakers with multiple sessions appear only in training, which makes every reported test number an estimate of how the models behave for first-time, never-seen users. The second is the acoustic model: 25-second segments of filter-bank coefficients (standard spectral features computed every 10 milliseconds) processed by a CNN-LSTM encoder that was first trained on an automatic speech recognition task, then frozen while a prediction layer was trained on the depression labels; per-segment predictions are pooled by a second network into one session-level score. The third is the NLP model: an AWD-LSTM (a regularized long short-term memory language model) adapted in stages through large public text, health-forum text, unlabeled in-domain text, and finally the labeled sessions, using the ULMFiT fine-tuning recipe of gradually unfreezing layers with per-layer learning rates. The robustness analysis itself rests on the DeLong test, a nonparametric procedure for comparing two or more correlated ROC curves, applied to every metadata subset with at least 150 sessions.

What would settle it

Run the two trained models exactly as described on an independent corpus collected with a different application, devices, and population, with clinician-administered diagnoses as the labels; if the AUC falls well below 0.80 or swings sharply across demographic subgroups, the generalization and stability claims fail. A cheaper partial check is to re-score a subset of the existing test speakers who have clinician-confirmed diagnoses and compare that AUC with the PHQ-8-based number reported here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single acoustic model and a single NLP model, using no inputs beyond the audio or the transcribed words of a four- to five-minute conversation, each classify depression at an AUC close to or above 0.80 — specifically 0.779 for the acoustic model and 0.825 for the NLP model on the full held-out test set — and that combining multiple models of the same type adds two to three percent more AUC. The NLP model outperforms the acoustic model across all operating points of the ROC curve. When the test set is grouped by user and session metadata, the DeLong test shows no significant difference from the overall AUC for almost every subgroup; the exceptions are a significantly lower acoustic-model AUC for speakers aged 26 to 35 and for Hispanic speakers, and higher-than-average AUCs in a few US states for one or both models. The authors note that accuracy stays flat even where depression priors differ sharply, such as the higher PHQ-8 scores recorded in late-night sessions, and take this as evidence the models separate the classes rather than latching onto collection-time statistics. They compare their curves with detection rates from three published primary-care studies, explicitly noting those studies are not directly comparable, and place both models in line with or above those reference points.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on treating a self-reported PHQ-8 score of 10 or above as the definition of depression and on assuming that one application's collection method represents other remote screening settings; if either assumption fails, the reported accuracy and stability figures would not carry over to clinical diagnosis or to other data pipelines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single model reaches an AUC near 0.80 on people never seen in training, and fusing several models of the same type adds 2–3%, so a production screener could realistically operate above 0.82 for every patient without retraining.
Because the NLP model needs only the words and the acoustic model only the raw audio, either approach can run on ordinary phones from a four- to five-minute spoken session, which makes remote, self-administered screening logistically simple.
Accuracy is stable across time of day, day of week, and season even though depression rates in the corpus vary with those factors, so collection does not need to be scheduled or statistically corrected for timing.
The speaker-disjoint split, with multi-session speakers kept out of the test set, means the reported numbers describe how the models treat first-time users rather than people whose earlier data was seen in training.
The statistically significant dips — the acoustic model for speakers aged 26 to 35 and for Hispanic speakers — are isolated rather than global, but they mark groups where any deployed screener should be validated before use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The reported AUCs measure agreement with a self-report questionnaire, not with a clinical diagnosis; until clinician-verified labels are used, the honest deployment claim is 'screening aid,' not 'diagnosis.'
The corpus shows higher PHQ-8 scores in late-night sessions, so recording time may correlate with mood; a deployed system could treat time of day as a covariate to exploit or correct for that signal rather than ignoring it.
The acoustic model's unexplained gaps for Hispanic speakers and the 26–35 age group suggest a testable extension: check whether accent-balanced pretraining or more diverse training audio closes those gaps.
The paper itself notes that it tested only subsets of one matched collection; its own stated next step — running the frozen models on a foreign corpus with different devices, demographics, and collection styles — is the experiment that would show whether the 0.80-level AUC and the stability pattern generalize.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

Quick take: this is a solid industry study with a genuinely large corpus, and the speaker-disjoint evaluation is a real strength. The headline result—both an acoustic and an NLP model separating depressed from non-depressed speakers at AUC around 0.80—is believable for this corpus. But the abstract rounds the acoustic model's 0.779 up to "at or above 0.80," and the paper's generalizability claims go beyond what a single proprietary collection and a PHQ-8 self-report label can support.

What's actually new: most prior speech-based depression work uses shared datasets with a few hundred subjects. Here you have 11,000 unique speakers, roughly 16,000 sessions, and a systematic breakdown of performance by gender, age, smoking, ethnicity, location, marital status, time of day, and season. That kind of robustness analysis is useful and rarely done. The models themselves are standard transfer learning—ULMFiT for text, a CNN-LSTM with ASR pretraining for audio—so the novelty is in the scale and the evaluation, not the architecture.

What the paper does well: the test set has no speaker overlap, which rules out the most obvious form of leakage. The subset analysis is done without retraining, which is the right way to ask whether a fixed model generalizes. The authors also flag the PCP comparison as not directly comparable, which is honest.

Soft spots, in proportion: the load-bearing issue is external validity. PHQ-8 ≥10 is a self-report screening cutoff, not a clinical diagnosis. The paper calls it a "gold standard," which it is not. So the AUCs measure discrimination of self-reported caseness in one app context. The comparison to PCP detection is interesting but confounded, exactly as the stress-test says. The paper itself concedes in Section V that it only examines subsets within a matched collection, so this is not hidden. Still, the abstract's "promise for generalized automated depression screening" is a step ahead of the evidence.

Smaller issues: no confidence intervals on the main AUCs, multiple DeLong tests without multiple-comparison correction, and post hoc exclusion of categories with fewer than 150 sessions. These are real but minor. The abstract rounding of 0.779 to "above 0.80" is the kind of thing a referee should ask them to fix.

Who this is for: anyone working on speech or NLP mental-health screening will want to know these numbers. It won't change how people build models, but it provides a useful reference point on robustness. It deserves a serious referee, and with a revised abstract and some statistical caveats, it would be a fine conference paper.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, and ask for confidence intervals and a careful rewrite of the gold-standard language.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents two deep learning systems for binary depression classification from speech and text: an acoustic model based on CNN-LSTM with ASR transfer learning, and an NLP model based on AWD-LSTM/ULMFiT transfer learning. Both are trained and evaluated on a proprietary corpus of approximately 16,000 sessions from roughly 11,000 speakers, with a speaker-disjoint train/test partition. The headline results are an acoustic AUC of 0.779 and an NLP AUC of 0.825 on the full test set (Table 2), with additional subset analyses by user and session metadata. The authors claim the models are robust across most metadata categories and, in the abstract, that 'both models perform at or above AUC=0.80'. They conclude that the models offer promise for generalized automated depression screening.

Significance. If the reported results are accurate, this is one of the largest speaker-disjoint evaluations of speech- and text-based depression screening to date, and the transfer-learning approach is practically relevant. The paper's strengths include the scale of the corpus, explicit separation of train and test speakers, evaluation of acoustic and lexical modalities individually, and a candid discussion of limitations in Section V. However, the central claims as stated are weakened by an overstatement in the abstract, missing confidence intervals, an uncorrected multiple-comparison analysis, and the use of a self-report screening instrument (PHQ-8) as a 'gold standard.' These issues do not invalidate the internal evaluation, but they prevent the paper from supporting the generalized screening conclusion in its current form.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states that 'both models perform at or above AUC=0.80 on unseen data', but Table 2 reports an acoustic AUC of 0.779 for the full test set. This is a load-bearing numerical claim that is not supported by the paper's own results. Please correct the abstract (and the corresponding sentence in Section IV) to report the actual values, e.g., acoustic 0.779 and NLP 0.825, or provide confidence intervals that justify rounding 0.779 to 'above 0.80'.
[Section IV, Table 2 and DeLong tests] No confidence intervals are reported for any AUC values, yet the paper uses point estimates to support claims of 'robustness' and to compare against PCP reference studies. Furthermore, the robustness analysis runs a large number of DeLong tests across many metadata categories without any multiple-comparison correction. With more than 30 comparisons and a threshold of p<0.05, several apparent differences are expected to be false positives. Please report confidence intervals for the main AUCs and apply a multiple-comparison correction (e.g., FDR or Bonferroni) or explicitly label the subset comparisons as exploratory.
[Section II.A and Section IV] The PHQ-8 is a self-report screening instrument, not a clinical diagnosis of depression, but Section II.A calls PHQ-8 scores of 10 and above a 'gold standard'. The comparison in Section IV to PCP detection studies [20]–[22] is confounded because those studies use clinician diagnosis rather than a self-report cutoff. Section V concedes that the study 'examine[s] only subsets within a matched collection.' The abstract and conclusions should therefore be limited to 'discrimination of PHQ-8 caseness in this app's collection context' rather than 'generalized automated depression screening.'
[Table 1 and Table 2] There is an internal inconsistency in the reported session counts. Table 1 gives a total of 15,950 sessions, with train sessions 9,266+3,606=12,872 and test sessions 2,425+653=3,078. Table 2's base row reports a train session count of 11,215 and a test session count of 3,080. Please reconcile these numbers; if the difference arises from filtering (e.g., removing speakers with multiple sessions), state that explicitly.

minor comments (4)

[Section II.A] The company name is misspelled as 'Ellipsis Heath'; it should be 'Ellipsis Health'.
[Table 2, caption] The first table row renders '11 215' with an unusual space; use a comma or a clear numeral format, and ensure the value matches Table 1.
[Section IV] The paper excludes categories with fewer than 150 sessions but does not state how many categories were excluded or whether any conclusions depend on that threshold. Please add that information.
[References] Reference [18] is cited for the Wikipedia pretraining corpus, but the citation points to Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models, which does not appear to be the correct source for that claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported AUCs are measured on a speaker-disjoint test set, and the paper's claims do not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation paper, not a derivation. The central claim is that two deep learning models achieve AUC close to or above 0.80 for binary depression classification on unseen speakers. The paper explicitly partitions the Ellipsis corpus into train and test sets with no overlapping speakers (Section II.A: "Data was partitioned into train and test sets with no overlapping speakers"), and it states that subset results are reported "without model retraining or optimization for each subset" (Section I). Thus the headline performance is measured, not fitted, and is not circular by construction. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction of that same subset; no result is justified solely by a self-citation; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper's use of PHQ-8 as a gold standard, following reference [12], is an external instrument choice and a validity concern, not a circularity concern. The abstract's statement "at or above AUC=0.80" versus the acoustic model's Table 2 value of 0.779 is an internal consistency issue, not circularity. The acknowledged limitation in Section V that the paper "examine[s] only subsets within a matched collection" concerns external generalization and would remain relevant even if the evaluation were perfectly non-circular; it does not make the evaluation circular. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of PHQ-8 self-report labels, the representativeness of a single proprietary corpus, and standard transfer-learning assumptions. No external data, code, or clinical validation is available to independently check these premises.

free parameters (2)

Segment length for acoustic model = 25 seconds
Section III.A states the fixed-length segment is 'optimized empirically'; it determines the input features and affects model performance.
Minimum session count for subset analysis = 150 sessions
Section IV says 'We excluded categories with session counts below 150 to avoid noisy results'; this threshold is chosen by hand and changes which subsets are reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PHQ-8 self-report score of 10 or higher is a valid binary gold standard for depression
All labels derive from PHQ-8 [12] in Section II.A; no clinical interview is used to validate the self-reports.
domain assumption Speaker-disjoint train/test split is sufficient to measure generalization
Section II.A partitions without speaker overlap; this assumes no other leakage, such as session-level or demographic correlations, meaningfully inflates the AUC.
domain assumption Transfer learning from ASR and public text corpora improves target performance
Section III uses ASR pretraining and ULMFiT; the paper presents this as design without testing against no-transfer baselines.
standard math DeLong test assumptions hold for comparing AUCs on correlated subsets
Section IV invokes DeLong [23] without verifying independence or applying multiple-comparison corrections across many subset tests.
domain assumption The proprietary corpus is representative of the target remote screening population
The corpus was collected through one human-machine application with users aged 18-65; the paper does not establish representativeness beyond this collection.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Speech and Natural Language Processing Models for Depression Screening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQOKXIR3

@misc{pith2026241219072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Speech and Natural Language Processing Models for Depression Screening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQOKXIR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19072}
}

read the original abstract

Depression is a global health concern with a critical need for increased patient screening. Speech technology offers advantages for remote screening but must perform robustly across patients. We have described two deep learning models developed for this purpose. One model is based on acoustics; the other is based on natural language processing. Both models employ transfer learning. Data from a depression-labeled corpus in which 11,000 unique users interacted with a human-machine application using conversational speech is used. Results on binary depression classification have shown that both models perform at or above AUC=0.80 on unseen data with no speaker overlap. Performance is further analyzed as a function of test subset characteristics, finding that the models are generally robust over speaker and session variables. We conclude that models based on these approaches offer promise for generalized automated depression screening.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19072 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** PHQ-8 value (mean and variance) for sessions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of acoustic model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview of NLP model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ROC curves for a single Ellipsis acoustic model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[20]

Rates of Detection of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study,

M. Vermani, M. Marcus and M. Katzman, "Rates of Detection of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study,” Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord., 2011, PCC.10m01013

work page 2011
[22]

Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis,

A. J. Mitchell, A. Vaze, and S. Rao, “Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis,” Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9690, pp. 609–619, 2009

work page 2009
[1]

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017, pp

World Health Organization, Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017, pp. 1–24

work page 2017
[2]

Major depressive disorder,

American Psychiatric Association, “Major depressive disorder,” in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

A Review of Depression and Suicide Risk Assessment Using Speech Analysis,

N. Cummins, S. Scherer, J. Krajewski, S. Schnieder, J. Epps, and T. F. Quatieri. "A Review of Depression and Suicide Risk Assessment Using Speech Analysis," Speech Commun., vol. 71, pp. 10–49, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Hybrid Depression Classification and Estimation from Audio, Video and Text Information,

L. Yang, H. Sahli, X. Xia, E. Pei, M. C. Oveneke, and D. Jiang. "Hybrid Depression Classification and Estimation from Audio, Video and Text Information,” Proceedings of the 7th Annual Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Challenge, 2017, pp. 45–51

work page 2017
[5]

Detecting Depression using Vocal, Facial and Semantic Communication Cues,

J. R. Williamson, E. Godoy, M. Cha, A. Schwarzentruber, P. Khorrami, Y. Gwon, H. T. Kung, C. Dagli, and T. F. Quatieri, “Detecting Depression using Vocal, Facial and Semantic Communication Cues,” Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Challenge – AVEC ‘16, 2016, pp. 11–18

work page 2016
[6]

Using Topic Modeling to Improve Prediction of Neuroticism and Depression,

P. Resnik, A. Garron, and R. Resnik, “Using Topic Modeling to Improve Prediction of Neuroticism and Depression,” Proceedings of the 2013 Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2013, pp.1348–1353

work page 2013

Show all 24 references

[7]

Depression Assessment by Fusing High and Low Level Features from Audio, Video, and Text,

A. Pampouchidou, K. Marias, F. Yang, M. Tsiknakis, O. Simantiraki, A. Fazlollahi, M. Pediaditis, D. Manousos, A. Roniotis, G. Giannakakis, F. Meriaudeau, and P. Simos, “Depression Assessment by Fusing High and Low Level Features from Audio, Video, and Text,” Proceedings of the...

2016
[8]

AVEC 2019 Workshop and Challenge: State-of-Mind, Detecting Depression with AI, and Cross-Cultural Affect Recognition,

F. Ringeval, E. M. Messner, S. Song, S. Liu, Z. Zhao, A. Mallol– Ragolta, Z. Ren, M. Soleymani, M. Pantic, B. Schuller, M. Valstar, N. Cummins, R. Cowie, L. Tavabi, M. Schmitt, S. Alisamir, and S. Amiriparian, “AVEC 2019 Workshop and Challenge: State-of-Mind, Detecting Depress...

2019 arXiv
[9]

CLPsych 2015 Shared Task: Depression and PTSD on Twitter,

G. Coppersmith, M. Dredze, C. Harman, K. Hollingshead, and M. Hitchell, “CLPsych 2015 Shared Task: Depression and PTSD on Twitter,” Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality, 2015, pp. 31–39

2015
[10]

AVEC 2016: Depression, Mood, and Emotion Recognition Workshop and Challenge,

M. Valstar, M. Pantic, J. Gratch, B. Schuller, F. Ringeval, D. Lalanne, M. T. Torres, S. Scherer, G. Stratou, and R. Cowie, “AVEC 2016: Depression, Mood, and Emotion Recognition Workshop and Challenge,” Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Chal...

2016 arXiv
[11]

AVEC 2014: 3D Dimensional Affect and Depression Recognition Challenge,

M. Valstar, B. Schuller, K. Smith, T. Almaev, F. Eyben, J. Krajewski, R. Cowie, and M. Pantic, “AVEC 2014: 3D Dimensional Affect and Depression Recognition Challenge,” Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Challenge – AVEC '14, 2014, pp. 3–10

2014
[12]

The PHQ-8 as a Measure of Current Depression in the General Population,

K. Kroenke, T. W. Strine, R. Spitzer, J. B. W. Williams, J. T. Berry, and A. H. Mokdad, “The PHQ-8 as a Measure of Current Depression in the General Population,” J. of Affect. Disorders, vol. 114, no. 1–3, 2009

2009
[13]

Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, "Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

1998
[14]

Long Short-Term Memory,

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, "Long Short-Term Memory," Neural Comput., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

1997
[15]

Regularizing and Optimizing LSTM Language Models

S. Merity, N. S. Keskar, and R. Socher, “Regularizing and Optimizing LSTM Language Models.” 2017, arXiv:1708.02182

2017 arXiv
[16]

Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification,

J. Howard and S. Ruder. “Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification,” 2018, arXiv:1801.06146

2018 arXiv
[17]

How transferable are Neural Networks in NLP Applications,

L. Mou, Z. Meng, R. Yan, G. Li and Y. Xu, “How transferable are Neural Networks in NLP Applications,” Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016, arXiv:1603.06111

2016 arXiv
[18]

Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models,

S. Merity, C. Xiong, J. Bradbury and R. Socher, “Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models,” CoRR, 2016. abs/1609.07843

2016 arXiv
[19]

Spacy.io. (2020). Explosion. Accessed: October 14, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://spacy.io/

2020
[21]

Accuracy of general practitioner unassisted detection of depression,

M. Carey, K. Jones, G. Meadows, R. Sanson-Fisher, C. D’Este, K. Inder, S. L. Yoong, and G. Russell, “Accuracy of general practitioner unassisted detection of depression,” Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 571–578, 2014

2014
[23]

Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach,

E. R. DeLong, D. M. DeLong, and D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach,” Biometrics, vol. 44, no. 3, 837–845, 1988

1988
[24]

Fast Implementation of DeLong’s Algorithm for Comparing the Areas Under Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves,

X. Sun and W. Xu, “Fast Implementation of DeLong’s Algorithm for Comparing the Areas Under Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1389–1393, Nov. 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

Rates of Detection of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study,

M. Vermani, M. Marcus and M. Katzman, "Rates of Detection of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study,” Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord., 2011, PCC.10m01013

work page 2011

[2] [22]

Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis,

A. J. Mitchell, A. Vaze, and S. Rao, “Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis,” Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9690, pp. 609–619, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [1]

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017, pp

World Health Organization, Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017, pp. 1–24

work page 2017

[4] [2]

Major depressive disorder,

American Psychiatric Association, “Major depressive disorder,” in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [3]

A Review of Depression and Suicide Risk Assessment Using Speech Analysis,

N. Cummins, S. Scherer, J. Krajewski, S. Schnieder, J. Epps, and T. F. Quatieri. "A Review of Depression and Suicide Risk Assessment Using Speech Analysis," Speech Commun., vol. 71, pp. 10–49, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [4]

Hybrid Depression Classification and Estimation from Audio, Video and Text Information,

L. Yang, H. Sahli, X. Xia, E. Pei, M. C. Oveneke, and D. Jiang. "Hybrid Depression Classification and Estimation from Audio, Video and Text Information,” Proceedings of the 7th Annual Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Challenge, 2017, pp. 45–51

work page 2017

[7] [5]

Detecting Depression using Vocal, Facial and Semantic Communication Cues,

J. R. Williamson, E. Godoy, M. Cha, A. Schwarzentruber, P. Khorrami, Y. Gwon, H. T. Kung, C. Dagli, and T. F. Quatieri, “Detecting Depression using Vocal, Facial and Semantic Communication Cues,” Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Audio/Visual Emotion Challenge – AVEC ‘16, 2016, pp. 11–18

work page 2016

[8] [6]

Using Topic Modeling to Improve Prediction of Neuroticism and Depression,

P. Resnik, A. Garron, and R. Resnik, “Using Topic Modeling to Improve Prediction of Neuroticism and Depression,” Proceedings of the 2013 Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2013, pp.1348–1353

work page 2013