Abstract:Importance: While abundant work has examined patient-level differences in antidepressant treatment outcomes, little is known about the extent of clinician-level differences. Understanding these differences may be important in the development of risk models, precision treatment strategies, and more efficient systems of care. Objective: To characterize differences between outpatient clinicians in treatment selection and outcomes for their patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder across academic medical centers, community hospitals, and affiliated clinics. Design, setting, and participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data derived from electronic health records at 2 large academic medical centers and 6 community hospitals, and their affiliated outpatient networks, in eastern Massachusetts. Participants were deidentified clinicians who billed at least 10 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnoses of major depressive disorder per year between 2008 and 2022. Data analysis occurred between September 2023 and January 2024. Main outcomes and measures: Heterogeneity of prescribing, defined as the number of distinct antidepressants accounting for 75% of prescriptions by a given clinician; proportion of patients who did not return for follow-up after an index prescription; and proportion of patients receiving stable, ongoing antidepressant treatment. Results: Among 11 934 clinicians treating major depressive disorder, unsupervised learning identified 10 distinct clusters on the basis of ICD codes, corresponding to outpatient psychiatry as well as oncology, obstetrics, and primary care. Between these clusters, substantial variability was identified in the proportion of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants prescribed, as well as in the number of distinct antidepressants prescribed. Variability was also detected between clinician clusters in loss to follow-up and achievement of stable treatment, with the former ranging from 27% to 69% and the latter from 22% to 42%. Clinician clusters were significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Conclusions and relevance: Groups of clinicians treating individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder exhibit marked differences in prescribing patterns as well as longitudinal patient outcomes defined by electronic health records. Incorporating these group identifiers yielded similar prediction to more complex models incorporating individual codes, suggesting the importance of considering treatment context in efforts at risk stratification.

Identifying data-driven subtypes of major depressive disorder with electronic health records

Subphenotyping Depression Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Records

Redefining and subtyping of major depression based on brain functional connectivity signatures with high generalization: an ensemble hybrid framework

Biotypes of major depressive disorder: Neuroimaging evidence from resting-state default mode network patterns.

Identifying Subgroups of Major Depressive Disorder Using Brain Structural Covariance Networks and Mapping of Associated Clinical and Cognitive Variables

Data-driven biological subtypes of depression: systematic review of biological approaches to depression subtyping

Data-driven Clustering Differentiates Subtypes of Major Depressive Disorder with Distinct Brain Connectivity and Symptom Features

Identifying the Subtypes of Major Depressive Disorder Based on Somatic Symptoms: A Longitudinal Study Using Latent Profile Analysis

Dissecting Biological Heterogeneity in Major Depressive Disorder Based on Neuroimaging Subtypes with Multi-Omics Data

Symptom clustering of major depression in a national telehealth sample

Clinical stratification of Major Depressive Disorder in the UK Biobank: A gene-environment-brain Topological Data Analysis

Incorporating clinical, genomic profiles and polygenic risk scores for the subtyping of depressive disorders

Multimodal brain-derived subtypes of Major depressive disorder differentiate patients for anergic symptoms, immune-inflammatory markers, history of childhood trauma and treatment-resistance

Multimodal structural neuroimaging data unveil data-driven subtypes of treatment-resistant depression.

Predicting Treatment Selections for Individuals with Major Depressive Disorder According to Functional Connectivity Subgroups

Identifying Dementia Subtypes with Electronic Health Records

Subtyping drug-free first-episode major depressive disorder based on cortical surface area alterations

Major Depressive Disorder Subtypes to Predict Long-Term Course

Mapping Neurophysiological Subtypes of Major Depressive Disorder Using Normative Models of the Functional Connectome

Heterogeneity in Antidepressant Treatment and Major Depressive Disorder Outcomes Among Clinicians

The use of latent class analysis for identifying subtypes of depression: A systematic review