. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 17.

Published in final edited form as: Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 10;26(9):5190–5198. doi: 10.1038/s41380-020-0836-z

Table 2.

Association of LGMM classified early responders vs. early non-responders by mid-treatment (week 6) and outcome of depression at treatment end (week 12)

Predictor	Outcome	Unadjusted			Adjusted
Predictor	Outcome	Estimate/OR (95% CI)	p-value	R²/AUC^§	Estimate/OR(95% CI)	p-value	R²/AUC^§
Early response vs. early non-response classes	HAM-D score at week 12	−12.27(−14.48, −10.06)	<.001	0.40	−10.66(−13.13, −8.20)	<.001	0.45
	50% Reduction (week 12 – baseline)	10.48(3.94, 36.36)	<.001	0.65^§	14.88 (4.82, 59.32)	<.001	0.75^§
	Remission (HAM-D ≤10 at week 12)	15.87(4.62, 99.85)	<.001	0.65^§	12.03 (3.24, 78.46)	0.001	0.74^§

Note. HAM-D = Hamilton Depression Rating Sale; OR = Odds Ratio; AUC = Area Under the Curve. Early responders vs. early non-responders classified by LGMM are the predictors of each outcome at treatment. For the prediction of HAM-D at treatment end, a Gaussian regression model was fitted for HAM-D at week 6 and week 12 and the adjusted R² is reported. Logistic regression model was fitted for the binary outcome variables response and remission and AUC in the ROC curve is reported. Adjusted models controlled for age, gender, treatment, site, and HAM-D score at baseline.