To reduce the heterogeneity of depressive GWAS samples it seems relevant to evaluate and compare current instruments for depression phenotyping.

The aim is to evaluate the agreement of DSM criteria and HADS scores in depression phenotyping for population studies.

The self-report data was obtained from 5116 clients (females 50,63%; mean age 36,92±9,82 years, Ме=42; Q1=35, Q3=76) of genetic testing company Genotek Ltd.. The respondents completed an on-line questionnaire with items on social status and biometrics. Depression phenotyping was based on DSM-5 criteria (life-time and current for major and bipolar depression) and HADS (current).

Mean HADS scores were: HADS-A – 6,43±2,9, Ме=8; Q1=6, Q3=18; HADS-D – 4,5±2,83, Ме=6; Q1=4, Q3=17. Abnormal anxiety and depression (≥11 for each subscale) were present in 9% (N–456) and 3,4% (N–174) of respondents, respectively; borderline (8-10) – in 23% (N–1172) and 11,9% (N–592), respectively. The life-time report of major depression according to DSM-5 criteria was 17,6% (N–261) and of bipolar disorder – 8,3% (N–139). Moderate correlations were present for borderline HADS anxiety scores and DSM major depression (0.19, p<.01). Similar correlations of HADS anxiety scores were registered for DSM bipolar depression (0.20, p<.01). Moreover, HADS depression scores did not correlate with any DSM depressive phenotype.

Our study shows significant correlations only for DSM depression criteria and HADS anxiety, but not depression scores. It could indicate the different significance of individual scale items in depression phenotyping and the need for their separate further evaluation.

The research is supported by the Russian Scientific Fund grant #20-15-00132.

Lack of coordination between screening studies for common mental disorders in primary care and community epidemiological samples impedes progress in clinical epidemiology. Short screening scales based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the diagnostic interview used in community epidemiological surveys throughout the world, were developed to address this problem.

Expert reviews and cognitive interviews generated CIDI screening scale (CIDI-SC) item pools for 30-day DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PD) and bipolar disorder (BPD). These items were administered to 3058 unselected patients in 29 US primary care offices. Blinded SCID clinical reinterviews were administered to 206 of these patients, oversampling screened positives.

Stepwise regression selected optimal screening items to predict clinical diagnoses. Excellent concordance [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)] was found between continuous CIDI-SC and DSM-IV/SCID diagnoses of 30-day MDE (0.93), GAD (0.88), PD (0.90) and BPD (0.97), with only 9–38 questions needed to administer all scales. CIDI-SC versus SCID prevalence differences are insignificant at the optimal CIDI-SC diagnostic thresholds (χ21 = 0.0–2.9, p = 0.09–0.94). Individual-level diagnostic concordance at these thresholds is substantial (AUC 0.81–0.86, sensitivity 68.0–80.2%, specificity 90.1–98.8%). Likelihood ratio positive (LR+) exceeds 10 and LR− is 0.1 or less at informative thresholds for all diagnoses.

CIDI-SC operating characteristics are equivalent (MDE, GAD) or superior (PD, BPD) to those of the best alternative screening scales. CIDI-SC results can be compared directly to general population CIDI survey results or used to target and streamline second-stage CIDIs.