Abstract
Depression often goes unrecognized in individuals at risk or living with diabetes, presenting considerable challenges for primary care clinicians. Although large language models and other foundation model approaches are drawing significant attention, we systematically compared six established machine learning algorithms-Logistic Regression, Random Forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost, Naive Bayes, and Artificial Neural Networks-chosen for their reliability, interpretability, and feasibility in everyday clinical settings. By benchmarking their performance under real-world constraints, we identified key factors linked to depression risk in diabetes care, including patient sex, age, osteoarthritis, hemoglobin A1c, and body mass index. Although incomplete demographic information and potential label bias limited predictive power, our results demonstrate that a diverse set of clinical features might help pinpoint high-risk patients. They also indicate a need for longitudinal follow-up and richer clinical data to enhance model accuracy. As a practical benchmark for both clinicians and data scientists, this work suggests that machine learning–based risk stratification can improve early detection of depression and inform targeted interventions in diabetic populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
A minor revision was made to the author list.
Data Availability
All data used are available online at https://cpcssn.ca/ website upon reasonable request.
