Cortical high-threshold and low-activation characteristics in adolescent depression: a cross-age differential analysis
Equitable Digital Frailty Screening for Marginalized Older Adults Using Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview: Collaborative Development Guide and User Testing Study
Background: Older adults facing social or structural marginalization for reasons such as lower literacy, digital exclusion, financial constraints, restricted living environments, or complex health histories, face persistent barriers to much-needed health screening. Digital health tools, particularly those using audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology, offer potential to overcome these barriers (audio-delivered and self-administrable), but their application to marginalized populations remains underexplored. Moreover, guidance is limited for developing such tools which require collaboration within cross-disciplinary teams. This paper presents development insights and user testing findings from the ASCAPE (Audio App-Delivered Screening for Cognition and Age-Related Health in Prisoners) project, which aimed to develop equitable digital frailty and cognition screening for older people in Australian prisons. Objective: This study aims to describe the collaborative development of the “ASCAPE-HS” prototype, a tablet-based ACASI-delivered Frailty Index and aging screener, and to synthesize key lessons from the project that can inform equitable digital health tool development in hard-to-reach older adults. Also, to present findings on the usability and acceptability of ASCAPE-HS in a diverse community sample. Methods: The ASCAPE-HS prototype was developed through an iterative process involving researchers, clinicians, software developers, and end users under a digital health equity framework. The prototype included a self-administered, audio-delivered Frailty Index, alongside other items relevant to aging. The design process prioritized accessibility, sociocultural relevance, and technical feasibility, with regular multidisciplinary consultation and iterative refinement. Exploratory user testing with 20 older adults (aged 47‐93 years, including n=5 who had not finished secondary schooling, n=3 people with previous imprisonment history, and n=9 with mild or moderate cognitive impairment) provided feedback on usability and acceptability. Results: A 50-item Frailty Index was developed, alongside an additional selection of holistic questions that could meaningfully capture age-related health, and transferred to an iOS app (Apple, Inc), with ACASI features. Key elements included lay wording, consistent interface, simple “tapping” response options with repeatable audio feedback, a tutorial, and artificial intelligence–generated audio guidance. Key development considerations were synthesized into a checklist for teams undertaking similar projects. Successful strategies for the collaborative design process included diverse teams abreast of emerging literature and policy with varying expectations for engagement during development, and dedicating time to flexible, iterative development processes. Acceptability (median scores ≥4 out of 5 across 6 constructs) and usability (mean System Usability Scale score 79.0, SD 8.8) were high. Conclusions: A collaborative approach can produce ACASI-based health screening tools that are well-received by older adults. We highlight the feasibility of integrating frailty and aging assessment into a usable and acceptable digital tool, and offer actionable principles for collaborative, evidence-based development of equitable health screening tools in diverse, hard-to-reach populations.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/30699dc5ac2d0ad05f7755da3210033e" />
Machine Learning for Comparative Antidepressant Selection in Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review
Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) affects approximately 1 in 6 adults during their lifetime, yet antidepressant selection relies predominantly on trial-and-error, with response rates of only 42% to 53%. While machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in predicting treatment outcomes, most focus on single treatments rather than comparative selection across therapeutic alternatives, limiting their clinical utility for the medication choice decisions that clinicians face in practice. Objective: This systematic review evaluates ML approaches that examine 2 or more pharmacological interventions for predicting treatment outcomes in MDD, with a focus on their capacity to facilitate comparative treatment selection between medications or medication classes for individual patients. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from 2015 to 2025. We included studies involving adults with MDD that used ML models to predict treatment outcomes across 2 or more pharmacological treatments and reported medication-specific prediction outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST-AI (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Artificial Intelligence). We conducted a narrative synthesis organized by modeling strategies, data integration approaches, validation methodologies, and performance patterns. Results: From 5370 initial records, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, with dataset sample sizes ranging from 49 to 77,226 participants. Studies employed 3 distinct modeling strategies: drug-specific supervised models trained independently for each medication, subtype- or trajectory-based approaches using clustering methods to identify differential response patterns, and a unified differential prediction framework generating calibrated cross-treatment predictions. Performance varied substantially, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.59 to 0.95 and classification accuracies between 62% and 95.4%, though high performance was concentrated in studies with small samples, high-dimensional neurobiological features, and internal-only validation. Only 7 studies conducted external validation, which generally yielded more conservative performance estimates. Feature informativeness was more consistently associated with performance variation than algorithm complexity. Most studies did not formally distinguish between prognostic features predicting general outcomes and predictive features identifying differential medication responses, and none applied formal explainability techniques. Conclusions: ML for comparative antidepressant selection remains in an early stage of development. Only 1 study implemented a unified framework directly supporting patient-level treatment ranking. Key barriers to clinical translation include insufficient distinction between prognostic and predictive markers, limited cross-trial validation, near-absent calibration reporting, and absent explainability. Future research should prioritize unified comparative frameworks with calibrated predictions, rigorous external validation on diverse cohorts, explicit modeling of heterogeneous treatment effects, and integration of explainability into model development.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/a59ed16526360bac492b29bed9672c02" />

