Distinguishing Common Digital Phenotyping and Self-Report Parameters for Monitoring and Predicting Depression: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Digital health interventions incorporating self-management strategies are increasingly used to support individuals in managing depression. These interventions often leverage self-monitoring and passive sensor-based data collection to provide personalized feedback, guiding behavioral change. With the proliferation of smartphones and wearable devices, there is growing potential to continuously collect behavioral and physiological data. However, a major limitation in the field is the lack of consolidated evidence on which specific parameters are most useful for monitoring and predicting depression-related outcomes. Objective: This scoping review aims to identify and synthesize common digital phenotyping and self-report parameters for monitoring and predicting depression. Specifically, it addresses the methodological and knowledge gap concerning which types of sensor-based and self-reported data are most frequently used and which demonstrate predictive value in tracking changes in depressive symptoms across digital platforms. Methods: A literature search was conducted across 4 databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Articles published between January 1, 2021, and November 26, 2025, were included. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with depression confirmed through validated clinical measures and using digital approaches that collected passive sensor data, self-reports, or both. Studies focusing on comorbid disorders, nondigital interventions, or not reporting depression-related outcomes were excluded. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were followed, and a 5-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews was implemented. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black Instrument and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: Nineteen studies were included, comprising a total of 85,193 participants. Most studies used smartphone- or wearable-based tools, with passive sensing as the predominant data source and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as the most commonly used depression measure. Five overarching parameter categories were identified: (1) physical activity and location, (2) behavioral patterns, (3) physiological signals, (4) sleep indicators, and (5) sociability and self-reported assessments. Within these categories, 11 metrics, including step count, heart rate variability, sleep duration and mood self-ratings, were most frequently reported. Most studies used a multimodal digital phenotyping approach, integrating passive sensor-derived data with active user-reported input, enabling more individualized symptom monitoring over time. Conclusions: This scoping review provides a novel synthesis of common digital parameters used across diverse tools for monitoring and predicting depression, moving beyond tool- or modality-specific perspectives adopted in prior reviews. Unlike existing reviews focusing on individual sensing modalities, prediction methods, or intervention effectiveness, this review maps shared parameters across observational, predictive, and interventional studies. By identifying convergent digital markers, the review supports comparability across studies and informs future model development. These findings have practical implications for the design of scalable digital mental health tools and for translating digital phenotyping into real-world clinical and self-management contexts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,176 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,037 | 0,027 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».