RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening kit combining psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers, in a prospective clinical trial. The objective was to assess its potential as a depression screening tool and investigate the associations between psychological assessments, salivary hormone staging, and depression severity. METHODS: Thirty-five participants with major depressive disorder and 12 healthy controls (HCs) were included. The Minds.NAVI software, utilizing the PROtective and Vulnerable factors battEry Test (PROVE) and salivary cortisol/dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) analysis, was employed. The PROVE test is a comprehensive self-report questionnaire that assesses depressive symptoms, suicide risk, attachment style, adverse childhood experiences, mentalization capacity, and resilience. In addition, salivary cortisol and DHEA levels were measured to evaluate the functional stage of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. RESULTS: Minds.NAVI exhibited 100% sensitivity, 91.7% specificity, and 97.9% accuracy in distinguishing depression from HCs within an exploratory small group. Salivary stress hormone phases showed changes with depression stage (p=0.030), and the proportion of patients with "adrenal exhaustion stage" was higher in the moderate/severe depression group (p=0.038). Protective/vulnerable factors differed significantly between controls and depressed groups (p<0.001). Cortisol awakening response inversely correlated with depressive symptom severity (r=-0.31, p=0.034). CONCLUSION: This study suggested possible clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening tool that integrates psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers. The findings support the potential association between depression, chronic stress, and HPA axis hyporesponsiveness.
RESUMEN
Objectives: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are fundamental factors in developing depression with increased suicide risk. Resilience is considered an important protective factor that can prevent trauma survivors from developing depression. We developed a home evaluation kit for a comprehensive assessment of bio-psycho-social factors related to depression and suicide. This kit contained a psycho-social evaluation battery, named the Protective and Vulnerable factors battery questionnaire (PROVE) comprising depressive symptoms and suicide risk, as well as various depression-related psychosocial factors, such as ACE, resilience, mentalization capacity, and attachment, via online survey tools. Furthermore, salivary cortisol levels were used as biological indicators to assess the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis function. Methods: Real-world data analysis was made out of data collected from participants who visited CHEEU Counseling center or Gangnam Severance hospital for mental health check-ups. The participants were put into three mental state groups (green-normal, yellow-borderline, and red-risk) depending on the result of PROVE battery. The difference between psychosocial factors and salivary cortisol indicators by the group was identified by analysis of covariance with sex and age as covariates. Linear regression analysis was conducted to find a significant association of resilience score with other bio-psycho-social variables, such as ACE, attachment, mentalization, or post-awakening cortisol concentrations (area under the curve with respect to ground, AUCg). A partial correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship of AUCg with psychosocial factors. Results: Depression-related psycho-social indicators were significantly different among groups. Insecure attachment and the mentalization problem are negatively influencing factors to resilience. Furthermore, the severity of depression in participants with ACE was also influenced by mentalization problems. AUCg was different according to the PROVE group, presence of ACE, or resilience level. In addition, AUCg showed a positive correlation with resilience score but negative correlations with depressive symptoms, ACE, mentalization problems, and anxiety or avoidance attachment. Conclusion: This study suggests that there are some key factors negatively affecting resilience: insecure attachment and mentalization problems. In groups with ACE, a mentalization problem was suggested as a factor that can increase depressive symptoms. AUCg was associated with resilience as well as several other vulnerable factors of depression, showing its potential as a promising biomarker.
RESUMEN
Objectives: As the significance of the early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has emerged, it is necessary to develop corresponding screening tools with high ecological validity and feasible biomarkers. Virtual reality (VR)-based cognitive assessment program, which is close to the daily life of the older adults, can be suitable screening tools for MCI with ecological validity and accessibility. Meanwhile, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) has been observed at a low concentration in the older adults with dementia or cognitive decline, indicating its potential as a biomarker of MCI. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and usability of a VR cognitive assessment program and salivary DHEA for screening MCI. Methods: The VR cognitive assessment program and the traditional Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) test were performed on 12 patients with MCI and 108 healthy older adults. The VR program operates in a situation of caring for a grandchild, and evaluates the memory, attention, visuospatial, and executive functions. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), a partial correlation analysis, and receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were conducted for statistical analysis. Results: According to the ANCOVA, no significant difference in MOCA scores was found between the normal and MCI groups (F = 2.36, p = 0.127). However, the VR total score of the MCI group was significantly lower than that of the normal group (F = 8.674, p = 0.004). There was a significant correlation between the MOCA and VR scores in the total and matched subdomain scores. The ROC curve analysis also showed a larger area under the curve (AUC) for the VR test (0.765) than for the MOCA test (0.598), and the sensitivity and specificity of the VR program were 0.833 and 0.722, respectively. Salivary DHEA was correlated with VR total (R 2 = 0.082, p = 0.01) and attention scores (R 2 = 0.086, p = 0.009). Conclusion: The VR cognitive test was as effective as the traditional MOCA test in the MCI classification and safe enough for older adults to perform, indicating its potential as a diagnostic tool. It has also been shown that salivary DHEA can be used as a biomarker for MCI.
