Abstract
Validated instruments such as questionnaires, patient-reported outcome measures and clinician-rated psychopathology scales, are indispensable for measuring symptom burden and mental state, and for defining outcomes in both psychiatric practice and clinical trials. Most often, the values on the instrument’s multiple items (dimensions) are added to derive a single, univariate (scalar) sum-score. Although this approach simplifies interpretation, there are always many possible combinations of individual items that can yield the same sum-score. Two patients can therefore obtain identical scores on a given instrument, despite having very different combinations of underlying item scores corresponding to different patterns of clinical symptoms. The same is also true when a single patient is measured at two different time points, where the resulting sum-scores can obscure changes that may be clinically meaningful.
We present an alternative analytic framework, which leverages geometric concepts to represent measurements as points in a vector space. Using this framework, we show why sum-scores obscure information present in measurements of clinical state, and also provide a straightforward algorithm to mitigate against this problem. Clinically-relevant outcomes, such as remission or patient-centered treatment goals, can be represented intuitively, as reference points or ‘anchors’ within this space. Using real-world data, we then demonstrate how measuring the relative distance between points and anchors preserves more information, allowing outcomes such as proximity to remission, to be defined and measured.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DWJ is supported by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (Grant BRC-1215-20005)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used openly available data available from the NIMH funded CATIE trial. It is available (to authorised users) from: https://nda.nih.gov/edit _collection.html?id=2081
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
email: nicholas.meyer{at}kcl.ac.uk
Data Availability
All data used in the present study are available from the NIMH NDAR archive (with access being granted by application to the NIMH). https://nda.nih.gov/get/access-data.html
