Aim:

Depressive disorder is often evaluated using established rating scales. However, consistent data collection with these scales requires trained professionals. In the present study, the “rater & estimation-system” reliability was assessed between consensus evaluation by trained psychiatrists and the estimation by 2 models of the AI-MADRS (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) estimation system, a machine learning algorithm-based model developed to assess the severity of depression.

Methods:

During interviews with trained psychiatrists and the AI-MADRS estimation system, patients responded orally to machine-generated voice prompts from the AI-MADRS structured interview questions. The severity scores estimated from two models of the AI-MADRS estimation system, the max estimation model and the average estimation model, were compared with those by trained psychiatrists.

Results:

A total of 51 evaluation interviews conducted on 30 patients were analyzed. Pearson’s correlation coefficient with the scores evaluated by trained psychiatrists was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.62-0.86) for the max estimation model, and 0.86 (0.76-0.92) for the average estimation model. The ANOVA ICC rater & estimation-system reliability with the evaluation scores by trained psychiatrists was 0.51 (-0.09 to 0.79) for the max estimation model, and 0.75 (0.55-0.86) for the average estimation model.

Conclusion:

The average estimation model of AI-MADRS demonstrated substantially acceptable rater & estimation-system reliability with trained psychiatrists. Accumulating a broader training dataset and the refinement of AI-MADRS interviews are expected to improve the performance of AI-MADRS. Our findings suggest that AI technologies can significantly modernize and potentially revolutionize the realm of depression assessments.