MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809351553 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.9691

Correlations Between Objective Behavioral Features Collected From Mobile and Wearable Devices and Depressive Mood Symptoms in Patients With Affective Disorders: Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2809351553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Darius A. Rohani, Maria Faurholt‐Jepsen, Lars Vedel Kessing, Jakob E. Bardram

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodWearable computermHealthWearable technologyDepressive symptomsPsychologyMood disordersClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychological interventionComputer scienceAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have recently reported on the correlation between objective behavioral features collected via mobile and wearable devices and depressive mood symptoms in patients with affective disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorders). However, individual studies have reported on different and sometimes contradicting results, and no quantitative systematic review of the correlation between objective behavioral features and depressive mood symptoms has been published. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to (1) provide an overview of the correlations between objective behavioral features and depressive mood symptoms reported in the literature and (2) investigate the strength and statistical significance of these correlations across studies. The answers to these questions could potentially help identify which objective features have shown most promising results across studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature, reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Web of Sciences, PsychINFO, PubMed, DBLP computer science bibliography, HTA, DARE, Scopus, and Science Direct were searched and supplemented by hand examination of reference lists. The search ended on April 27, 2017, and was limited to studies published between 2007 and 2017. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies were eligible for the review. These studies identified and investigated 85 unique objective behavioral features, covering 17 various sensor data inputs. These features were divided into 7 categories. Several features were found to have statistically significant and consistent correlation directionality with mood assessment (eg, the amount of home stay, sleep duration, and vigorous activity), while others showed directionality discrepancies across the studies (eg, amount of text messages [short message service] sent, time spent between locations, and frequency of mobile phone screen activity). CONCLUSIONS: Several studies showed consistent and statistically significant correlations between objective behavioral features collected via mobile and wearable devices and depressive mood symptoms. Hence, continuous and everyday monitoring of behavioral aspects in affective disorders could be a promising supplementary objective measure for estimating depressive mood symptoms. However, the evidence is limited by methodological issues in individual studies and by a lack of standardization of (1) the collected objective features, (2) the mood assessment methodology, and (3) the statistical methods applied. Therefore, consistency in data collection and analysis in future studies is needed, making replication studies as well as meta-analyses possible.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations213
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207