Abstract
Objective
Given the long-term and severe distress experienced during breast cancer treatment, detecting depression among breast cancer patients is clinically crucial. This study aimed to explore a machine-learning model using self-report questionnaires to screen for depression in patients with breast cancer.
Methods
A total of 327 patients who visited the breast cancer clinic were included in this study. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The depression was evaluated according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition. The prediction model’s performance based on supervised machine learning was conducted using MATLAB2022.
Results
The BDI showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.785 when using the logistic regression (LR) classifier. The HADS and PHQ-9 showed an AUC of 0.784 and 0.756 when using the linear discriminant analysis, respectively. The combinations of BDI and HADS showed an AUC of 0.812 when using the LR. The combinations of PHQ-9, BDI, and HADS showed an AUC of 0.807 when using LR.
Conclusion
The combination model with BDI and HADS in breast cancer patients might be better than the method using a single scale. In future studies, it is necessary to explore strategies that can improve the performance of the model by integrating the method using questionnaires and other methods.
Keywords: Breast neoplasms, Depression, Machine learning, Self report
INTRODUCTION
Depression is a common and severe problem for breast cancer patients. Breast cancer patients have a longer survival rates and favorable prognosis when compared with other cancers [1]. Due to the long and distressing process of treatment, 8 to 24% of all cancer patients suffer from depression [2]. The risk of depression increases up to 32.6% in patients with metastatic breast cancer [3]. Moreover, among depressed breast cancer patients, 22% suffer from moderate to severe depression which needs psychiatric intervention [4,5]. Diagnosis of breast cancer may be delayed in the presence of depression [6]. Unrecognized and untreated depression can increase cancer mortality and lead to shorter survival duration [7]. The aggravation of depressive symptoms can also negatively affect the treatment and prognosis of breast cancer patients [8,9]. Given that the high morbidity and negative consequence of depression during breast cancer treatment, the detection of high-risk groups of depression among breast cancer patients is clinically crucial.
Various instruments have been developed to effectively detecting the depression in breast cancer patients [10]. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), one of these instruments, is a 21-item self-report scale developed to evaluate the degree of depressive symptoms [11,12]. Although the BDI could be helpful in detecting depresion for breast cancer patients [6,13], a brief assessment tool could be useful when considering medical condition in patients with breast cancer [14,15]. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a comparably more convenient scale with 14-item which measures anxiety and depression. The HADS has been widely used as a standard screening tool with excellent psychometric properties in breast cancer patients and survivors [16-18]. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a 9-item brief self-report questionnaire. The PHQ-9 was reported to have acceptable reliability and validity for screening of depression in general population [19,20]. The PHQ-9 also has good reliability and validity in patients with breast cancer [21,22]. Meanwhile, a single iteme Distress Thermometer (DT) is sometimes used as a screening tool for depression in patients with breast cancer [23]. Although the DT is a convient screening tool for depression, this scale is limited in satisfying both sensitivity and specificity [24-27].
Screening for depression should be convenient, but also accurate. One approach is to use simultaneous and multiple self-report scales to enhance the detection rate of depression. When using multiple tools, the integrated score should be considered instead of applying a fixed cut-off point. Machine learning could be used to develop diagnostic screening models based on multiple scales [28]. However, there is a lack of studies that use machine learning with multiple scales to screen for depression in breast cancer patients. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance of individual self-rating scales as well as the combinations of scales for screening depression in breast cancer patients using machine learning models.
METHODS
Subjects
Patients attending the Breast Cancer Clinic in Pusan National University hospital from February 2021 to December 2021 were participated in this study. All patients who suffer from breast cancer without distant metastasis were included. Patients more than years after breast surgery and those who refused psychiatric evaluation were excluded. Total 327 patients were included. This study was approved by Institutional Review Board at Pusan National University Hospital (PNUH IRB: No.2301-004-122).
Design
The clinical characteristics in patients attending a breast cancer clinic were cross-sectionally investigated. The BDI, HADS, and PHQ-9 were used to measure depressive symptoms. The depression was evaluated according to the diagnostic criteria of major depressive disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition. Demographic variables were examined by using electronic medical recording.
Measurement
Beck Depression Inventory
The BDI is a 21-item self-report scale which measures the severity of depressive symptoms in emotional, cognitive, motivational, and physiological domains [11]. Each item is rated from 0 to 3, and the total score ranges from 0 to 63 points. The BDI is a valid screening tool for depression in medical inpatients [12]. The BDI has been used in patients with breast cancer [6,13].
Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale
The HADS was developed by Zigmond et al. [29] to assess anxiety and depression in general hospital patients. It consists of 14 items: 7 for anxiety and 7 for depression. It excludes somatic symptoms that may overlap with physical illnesses. It has been standardized and validated in various studies [30,31]. The HADS is a standard screening tool with good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients [16-18].
Patient Health Questionnaire-9
The PHQ-9 consisting of 9 items was developed to screening the high-risk group of depression in general population [19]. The Korean version of PHQ-9 also has acceptable psychometric properties to identify high-risk groups for depression [20]. The PHQ-9 in patients with breast cancer also has good reliability and validity [21,22].
Analysis
Sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics in patients with breast cancer were presented as the mean and standard deviation. To assess depression in patients with breast masses, the raw data of self-rating assessment scales for depression were used. Each individual depression questionnaire and the combination with these scales were used as input variables. The label of machine learning model determined the depression, classifying them into two categories: depression group and healthy group. For establishing the machine learning model, classifiers such as Support Vector Machine; Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), Random Forest; k-Nearest Neighbor-hood (kNN), and Logistic Regression (LR) were used. The data were randomly assigned into the training set and test set at a ratio of 7:3. The performance of the prediction model for detecting the depression group was evaluated using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. The metrics were calculated as means from 1,000 iterations. All analyses, including classification, were performed using MATLAB R2022 (MathWorks).
RESULTS
Characteristics of Demographic Variables
The characteristics of demographic variables in the subjects were shown in Table 1. The age of subjects was mean 48.7 ± 6.4. While the proportion of married state was 82.3%, the unmarried and divorced subjects were 16.5% and 1.2%, respectively. Stage 0 was 14.7% and stage I was 41.6%. Stage II or higher were 43.9% of the subjects. Histological findings showed that the ductal type was the most frequent at 86.9%. As for the type of surgery, partial resection was the highest at 62.1%. The subjects who received adjuvant treatment for chemotherapy were 48.3%, and 67.6% received radiotherapy. The patients who received anti-hormonal treatment were 80.4%. The total score of BDI was 9.7 ± 7.9. The total score of HADS was 10.1 ± 6.4. The total score of PHQ-9 was a mean of 5.6 ± 4.4.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics of the patients
| Characteristics (n = 327) | |
|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 48.7 ± 6.4 |
| Education year | 13.7 ± 3.3a |
| Marital status | |
| Unmarried | 54 (16.5) |
| Married | 269 (82.3) |
| Divorced | 4 (1.2) |
| Postmenopause | 65 (19.9) |
| Stage | |
| 0 | 48 (14.7) |
| I | 136 (41.6) |
| II | 127 (38.8) |
| III | 17 (5.1) |
| Histology | |
| Ductal | 284 (86.9) |
| Lobular | 17 (5.2) |
| Mixed | 5 (1.5) |
| Others | 13 (4.0) |
| Unknown | 8 (2.4) |
| Surgery type | |
| Partial resection | 203 (62.1) |
| Total without reconstruction | 36 (11.0) |
| Total with reconstruction | 88 (26.9) |
| Adjuvant treatment | |
| Chemotherapy | 158 (48.3) |
| Radiation | 221 (67.6) |
| Anti-hormonal treatment | 263 (80.4) |
| Target therapy | 34 (10.4) |
| BDI total score | 9.7 ± 7.9 |
| HADS total score | 10.1 ± 6.4 |
| PHQ-9 total score | 5.6 ± 4.4 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%).
Adjuvant treatments were presented in duplicate.
BMI, body mass index; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; HADS, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; PHQ-9, The Patient Health Questionnaire-9.
aThe mean education year was calculated in the 301 patients due to missing value.
Performance of the Single Questionnaire Models according to Machine Learning Classifiers
The accuracy of the BDI questionnaire ranged from 0.629 to 0.713 (Table 2). The accuracy of the LR classifier was the highest. The AUC ranged from 0.660 to 0.785. The BDI showed the highest AUC when using the LR classifier. The sensitivity (0.735) was highest when using the LR classifier, and the specificity (0.761) was highest when using the kNN-10 classifier. The HADS questionnaire had an accuracy between 0.615 and 0.705, with the highest accuracy achieved by the LR classifier. The AUC was between 0.637 and 0.784, with the LDA classifier achieving the highest AUC. The sensitivity was highest (0.719) for the LR classifier, and the specificity was highest (0.767) for the kNN-10 classifier. When using the PHQ-9 questionnaire, the accuracy ranged from 0.610 to 0.680 according to machine learning classifiers. The accuracy of the support vector machine radial basis function, support vector machines with linear and LR classifier was the highest. The AUC ranged from 0.623 to 0.756, and the model’s accuracy was best when using the LDA classifier. The sensitivity of the model (0.688) was highest when using LR, and the specificity of the model (0.773) was highest when using the kNN-10 classifier.
Table 2.
The results of performance of machine learning classifiers using a single questionnaire
| SVM-RBF | SVM-Lin | SVM-Poly | LDA | RF | kNN-2 | kNN-5 | kNN-10 | LR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDI | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.693 | 0.682 | 0.663 | 0.680 | 0.662 | 0.629 | 0.665 | 0.673 | 0.713 |
| AUC | 0.764 | 0.751 | 0.709 | 0.741 | 0.701 | 0.660 | 0.713 | 0.728 | 0.785 |
| Sensitivity | 0.688 | 0.672 | 0.645 | 0.670 | 0.659 | 0.605 | 0.635 | 0.641 | 0.735 |
| Specificity | 0.707 | 0.704 | 0.703 | 0.701 | 0.678 | 0.703 | 0.750 | 0.761 | 0.695 |
| HADS | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.697 | 0.695 | 0.669 | 0.703 | 0.673 | 0.615 | 0.628 | 0.653 | 0.705 |
| AUC | 0.754 | 0.774 | 0.722 | 0.784 | 0.746 | 0.637 | 0.695 | 0.736 | 0.771 |
| Sensitivity | 0.698 | 0.714 | 0.661 | 0.710 | 0.675 | 0.589 | 0.601 | 0.620 | 0.719 |
| Specificity | 0.701 | 0.683 | 0.687 | 0.700 | 0.694 | 0.722 | 0.729 | 0.767 | 0.694 |
| PHQ-9 | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.680 | 0.680 | 0.649 | 0.675 | 0.666 | 0.610 | 0.640 | 0.663 | 0.680 |
| AUC | 0.734 | 0.752 | 0.679 | 0.756 | 0.725 | 0.623 | 0.675 | 0.732 | 0.743 |
| Sensitivity | 0.679 | 0.677 | 0.641 | 0.664 | 0.659 | 0.587 | 0.611 | 0.629 | 0.688 |
| Specificity | 0.687 | 0.691 | 0.669 | 0.696 | 0.697 | 0.704 | 0.735 | 0.773 | 0.676 |
BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; HADS, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; PHQ-9, The Patient Health Questionnaire-9; AUC, area under the curve; SVM-RBF, support vector machine-radial basis function; SVM-Lin, support vector machine-linear kernel; SVM-Poly, support vector machine-polynomial kernel; LDA, Linear Discriminant Analysis; RF, Random Forest; kNN-n, k-Nearest Neighborhood with k value of n; LR, Logistic Regression.
Performance of the Combination Questionnaire Models according to Machine Learning Classifiers
The combination of BDI and HADS had an accuracy between 0.624 and 0.737, with LR classifier achieving the highest value (Table 3). The AUC was between 0.658 and 0.812, with LR classifier also having the highest value. The sensitivity was highest (0.756) for LR classifier, and the specificity was highest (0.775) for kNN-10 classifier. The combination of BDI and PHQ-9 had an accuracy between 0.607 and 0.715, with LR having the highest value. The AUC was between 0.635 and 0.782, with LR classifier also having the highest value. The sensitivity was highest (0.730) for LR classifier, and the specificity was highest (0.745) for kNN-10 classifier. The combination of HADS and PHQ-9 had an accuracy between 0.602 and 0.719, with LR classifier having the highest value. The AUC was between 0.639 and 0.794, with LR classifier also having the highest value. The sensitivity was highest (0.728) for LR classifier, and the specificity was highest (0.765) for kNN-10 classifier.
Table 3.
The results of performance of machine learning classifiers using a combination of multiple questionnaires
| SVM-RBF | SVM-Lin | SVM-Poly | LDA | RF | kNN-2 | kNN-5 | kNN-10 | LR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDI + HADS | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.715 | 0.692 | 0.671 | 0.678 | 0.687 | 0.624 | 0.670 | 0.684 | 0.737 |
| AUC | 0.793 | 0.768 | 0.745 | 0.737 | 0.749 | 0.658 | 0.719 | 0.761 | 0.812 |
| Sensitivity | 0.709 | 0.687 | 0.653 | 0.674 | 0.686 | 0.600 | 0.637 | 0.650 | 0.756 |
| Specificity | 0.730 | 0.707 | 0.714 | 0.689 | 0.704 | 0.708 | 0.761 | 0.775 | 0.723 |
| BDI + PHQ-9 | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.695 | 0.687 | 0.656 | 0.677 | 0.655 | 0.607 | 0.650 | 0.664 | 0.715 |
| AUC | 0.762 | 0.767 | 0.719 | 0.749 | 0.698 | 0.635 | 0.680 | 0.715 | 0.782 |
| Sensitivity | 0.691 | 0.677 | 0.640 | 0.667 | 0.658 | 0.589 | 0.623 | 0.634 | 0.730 |
| Specificity | 0.708 | 0.709 | 0.691 | 0.697 | 0.668 | 0.665 | 0.723 | 0.745 | 0.702 |
| HADS + PHQ-9 | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.692 | 0.701 | 0.673 | 0.701 | 0.687 | 0.602 | 0.650 | 0.669 | 0.719 |
| AUC | 0.772 | 0.781 | 0.744 | 0.779 | 0.745 | 0.639 | 0.704 | 0.736 | 0.794 |
| Sensitivity | 0.688 | 0.703 | 0.657 | 0.701 | 0.675 | 0.582 | 0.620 | 0.636 | 0.728 |
| Specificity | 0.704 | 0.705 | 0.709 | 0.707 | 0.726 | 0.678 | 0.740 | 0.765 | 0.714 |
| BDI + HADS + PHQ-9 | |||||||||
| Accuracy | 0.710 | 0.694 | 0.674 | 0.673 | 0.687 | 0.607 | 0.647 | 0.654 | 0.734 |
| AUC | 0.787 | 0.774 | 0.745 | 0.731 | 0.743 | 0.636 | 0.694 | 0.730 | 0.807 |
| Sensitivity | 0.706 | 0.689 | 0.655 | 0.667 | 0.679 | 0.586 | 0.618 | 0.625 | 0.749 |
| Specificity | 0.722 | 0.708 | 0.715 | 0.687 | 0.715 | 0.685 | 0.737 | 0.737 | 0.723 |
BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; HADS, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; PHQ-9, The Patient Health Questionnaire-9; AUC, area under the curve; SVM-RBF, support vector machine-radial basis function; SVM-Lin, support vector machine- linear kernel; SVM-Poly, support vector machine-polynomial kernel; LDA, Linear Discriminant Analysis; RF, Random Forest; kNN-n, k-Nearest Neighborhood with k value of n; LR, Logistic Regression.
The accuracy of the triple model with BDI, HADS, and PHQ-9 ranged from 0.607 to 0.734. The LR classifier showed the best accuracy. The AUC of triple model ranged from 0.636 to 0.807. The LR classifier also showed the best accuracy. The sensitivity of the triple model (0.749) was the best when using LR classifier. The specificity of the triple model (0.737) was best when using the kNN-5 and kNN-10 classifiers.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study showed that most of the machine learning models using single questionnaire such as BDI, HADS, and BDI had acceptable performance as shown in Table 2. The accuracy and AUC in most classifiers showed more than 0.6 and 0.7, respectively. The BDI showed the highest accuracy (0.713) and AUC (0.785) with LR classifier. Recent review on machine learning models for the early diagnosis of depression reported that the performance of the machine learning models varied within 60.1–100.0 for accuracy and 64.0–96.0 for the AUC, which is consistent with the result of this study [32]. Meanwhile, the machine models for the diagnosis of depression using neuroimaging or neurophysiologic data, such as structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI, diffusion MRI, electroencephalogram neuroimaging, showed higher performance than the one in this study [33], but machine learning models using these more accurate tests may not be useful for depression screening due to their cost-effectiveness. Given that the cost-effectiveness of the screening method, machine learning models using simple questionnaire with acceptable performance might be useful for the detection of depression.
Meanwhile, a strategy to further improve the performance of the machine learning model using the questionnaire may be needed. This study examined the performance of machine learning models using the combination of questionnaires for detection of depression. As shown in Table 3, the performances of combination models using multiple self-rating assessment scale for depression tend to be high compared to those of each single depression scale. Especially, the combination model with BDI and HADS showed highest accuracy (0.737) and AUC (0.812) with LR classifier in detecting depression in breast cancer patients. The screening performance of depression in the combination of BDI and HADS tended to be higher than one in the combination of PHQ-9 and HADS. These finding suggest that using the BDI with various questions about depression, rather than simple questions like the PHQ-9, might increase detecting performance. Additionally, the HADS asks anxiety symptoms, unlike the BDI, which can reflect general distress due to cancer [34,35]. These characteristics of the HADS appear to improve the model performance when the BDI and HADS are combined. However, the performance of the triple combination model was no better than that of the two-combination model. The overlapping use of BDI and PHQ-9, both of which only ask for depressive symptoms, does not seem to enhance the model’s performance. As a result, the two-combination model might be more valuable and efficient than the triple combination model.
This study has several limitations, as follows. First, this study used only three types of self-report questionnaires. Three major self-report assessment tools such as BDI, HADS, and PHQ-9 were included, but some other tools such as the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale and DT, which can be also used as screening tools for breast cancer patients, were not included. In future studies, it will be necessary to include all useful screening tools for comparisons. Second, clinical conditions such as breast cancer stage and treatment period were not considered for machine learning models. The screening results for depression in patients with breast cancer may differ depending on clinical characteristics, such as stage of breast cancer and the treatment period. However, a machine learning model that does not distinguish the clinical characteristics of breast cancer may still be useful in when early stages of a visit to a breast cancer clinic. Third, this study did not verify statistical significance among models combining scales. This study was an exploratory study to appropriately screen for depression in breast cancer patients. In future research, studies comparing the significance of the explored models need to be conducted.
In conclusion, this study showed that the BDI and HADS combination model showed acceptable and efficient performance in detecting depression in breast cancer patients. The combination method using self-report questionnaires in breast cancer patients may be better than a single scale. In future studies, other strategies to improve the screening performance, apart from self-report questionnaires, need to be considered. However, a machine learning models using a combination of simple and brief self-report questionnaires may help detect depression in patients who visit the breast cancer clinic.
Funding Statement
Funding This study was supported by Biomedical Research Institute Grant (20210080), Pusan National University Hospital, Republic of Korea.
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Heeseung Park, Eunsoo Moon, Taewoo Kang. Data curation: Heeseung Park, Kyoung-Eun Kim. Formal analysis: Kyungwon Kim, Hyun Ju Lim. Funding acquisition: Heeseung Park. Investigation: Heeseung Park, Eunsoo Moon, Taewoo Kang. Methodology: Heeseung Park, Kyungwon Kim, Eunsoo Moon, Hwagyu Suh, Taewoo Kang. Validation: Hwagyu Suh, Taewoo Kang. Writing—original draft: Heeseung Park, Eunsoo Moon. Writing—review & editing: Heeseung Park, Kyungwon Kim, Eunsoo Moon, Hyun Ju Lim, Hwagyu Suh, Kyoung-Eun Kim, Taewoo Kang.
References
- 1.Stein KD, Syrjala KL, Andrykowski MA. Physical and psychological long-term and late effects of cancer. Cancer. 2008;112(11 Suppl):2577–2592. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Krebber AM, Buffart LM, Kleijn G, Riepma IC, de Bree R, Leemans CR, et al. Prevalence of depression in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments. Psychooncology. 2014;23:121–130. doi: 10.1002/pon.3409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Love AW, Grabsch B, Clarke DM, Bloch S, Kissane DW. Screening for depression in women with metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of the Beck Depression Inventory short form and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004;38:526–531. doi: 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01385.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Purkayastha D, Venkateswaran C, Nayar K, Unnikrishnan UG. Prevalence of depression in breast cancer patients and its association with their quality of life: a cross-sectional observational study. Indian J Palliat Care. 2017;23:268–273. doi: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_6_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hwang KS, Lee KH, Yang CM, Lee HJ, Lee SY. Effects of psychosocial interventions for patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2023;21:118–125. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2023.21.1.118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Eskelinen M, Korhonen R, Selander T, Ollonen P. The relation of hopelessness/helplessness versus Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in healthy individuals and in patients with benign breast disease and breast cancer: a prospective case-control study in Finland. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:941–947. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kissane DW. Unrecognised and untreated depression in cancer care. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:320–321. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70345-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Giese-Davis J, Collie K, Rancourt KM, Neri E, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. Decrease in depression symptoms is associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a secondary analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:413–420. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.4455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Xu C, Ganesan K, Liu X, Ye Q, Cheung Y, Liu D, et al. Prognostic value of negative emotions on the incidence of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 129,621 patients with breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:475. doi: 10.3390/cancers14030475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Park H, Kim KE, Moon E, Kang T. Psychometric properties of assessment tools for depression, anxiety, distress, and psychological problems in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Psychiatry Investig. 2023;20:395–407. doi: 10.30773/pi.2022.0316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Beck AT, Steer RA. Internal consistencies of the original and revised Beck Depression Inventory. J Clin Psychol. 1984;40:1365–1367. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198411)40:6<1365::AID-JCLP2270400615>3.0.CO;2-D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Beck AT, Guth D, Steer RA, Ball R. Screening for major depression disorders in medical inpatients with the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35:785–791. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00025-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Eskelinen M, Ollonen P. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in patients with breast disease and breast cancer: a prospective case-control study. In Vivo. 2011;25:111–116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Vodermaier A, Linden W, Siu C. Screening for emotional distress in cancer patients: a systematic review of assessment instruments. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1464–1488. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Stafford L, Judd F, Gibson P, Komiti A, Mann GB, Quinn M. Screening for depression and anxiety in women with breast and gynaecologic cancer: course and prevalence of morbidity over 12 months. Psychooncology. 2013;22:2071–2078. doi: 10.1002/pon.3253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Saboonchi F, Wennman-Larsen A, Alexanderson K, Petersson LM. Examination of the construct validity of the Swedish version of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in breast cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2849–2856. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0407-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tomljenović H, Murgić J, Matijaš M, Jazvić M, Marić-Brozić J, Kirac I, et al. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: psychometric validation on a sample of croatian breast cancer patients. Croat J Oncol. 2021;49(Suppl):101–2. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hajian-Tilaki K, Hajian-Tilaki E. Factor structure and reliability of Persian version of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with breast cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:176. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01429-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.An JY, Seo ER, Lim KH, Shin JH, Kim JB. Standardization of the Korean version of screening tool for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9) J Korean Soc Biol Ther Psychiatry. 2013;19:47–56. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kim J, Lim S, Min YH, Shin YW, Lee B, Sohn G, et al. Depres-sion screening using daily mental-health ratings from a smartphone application for breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e216. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Torres A, Pereira A, Monteiro S, Albuquerque E. Preliminary psychometric characteristics of the Portuguese version of Pa-tient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) in a sample of Portuguese breast cancer women. Eur Psychiatry. 2013;28(Suppl 1):1. doi: 10.1016/S0924-9338(13)77209-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82:1904–1908. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980515)82:10<1904::AID-CNCR13>3.0.CO;2-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bidstrup PE, Mertz BG, Dalton SO, Deltour I, Kroman N, Kehlet H, et al. Accuracy of the Danish version of the 'Distress Thermometer'. Psychooncology. 2012;21:436–443. doi: 10.1002/pon.1917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Yong HW, Zubaidah J, Saidi M, Zailina H. Validation of Malaysian translated Distress Thermometer with problem checklist among the breast cancer survivors in Malaysia. Asian J Psychiatr. 2012;5:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2011.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Iskandarsyah A, de Klerk C, Suardi DR, Soemitro MP, Sadarjoen SS, Passchier J. The Distress Thermometer and its validity: a first psychometric study in Indonesian women with breast cancer. PLoS One. 2013;8:e56353. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Civilotti C, Acquadro Maran D, Santagata F, Varetto A, Stanizzo MR. The use of the Distress Thermometer and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for screening of anxiety and depression in Italian women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:4997–5004. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05343-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lim JS, Yang CM, Baek JW, Lee SY, Kim BN. Prediction models for suicide attempts among adolescents using machine learning techniques. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2022;20:609–620. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2022.20.4.609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lisspers J, Nygren A, Söderman E. Hospital Anxiety and De-pression Scale (HAD): some psychometric data for a Swedish sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997;96:281–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1997.tb10164.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Malasi TH, Mirza IA, el-Islam MF. Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Arab patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1991;84:323–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1991.tb03153.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lee KS, Ham BJ. Machine learning on early diagnosis of depression. Psychiatry Investig. 2022;19:597–605. doi: 10.30773/pi.2022.0075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bhadra S, Kumar CJ. An insight into diagnosis of depression using machine learning techniques: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38:749–771. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2038487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Annunziata MA, Muzzatti B, Bidoli E, Flaiban C, Bomben F, Piccinin M, et al. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) accuracy in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:3921–3926. doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-05244-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Affleck AG, Stewart AM. The Hospital Anxiety and Depres-sion Scale is a screening measure of general distress. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179:544. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]