[prsutherland]

90% isn't all that great of a result considering only about 6.7% of the US population suffers from depression each year[1] and the study was done in California. Just returning false would give you better accuracy.

Still Eliza on steroids is pretty cool. Can't wait till they integrate it into emacs.

[1] http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1MDD_ADULT.shtml

[aray]

They give their hypothesis in the paper, and each is shown with a p value < 0.05, so is statistically significant (and better than just returning false :)

http://schererstefan.net/assets/files/scherer_etal_FG2013.pd...

[prsutherland]

p values are a measure of the accuracy of the numbers. They are measuring how close the sample mean is to the population mean. In the case of the paper, the p values represent how close the sample mean of the head gaze, eye gaze, smile intensity and smile duration measurements are to the population means of the same values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

[GhotiFish]

hahahaha! I guess it's how you interpret that 90% figure.

If you interpret it as a measure of the tests sensitivity, then you're right 90% is pretty easy to beat!

If you interpret it as a measure of the tests specificity, then 90% accuracy is pretty darn good!

A little more accuracy would be nice, but then the title wouldn't be click-bait.

I like the idea though. Accurate depression test: Are you depressed? No. 93.3% accurate!