Assessing Anxiety Disorders Using Wearable Devices: Challenges and Future Directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable devices (WD) are starting to increasingly be used for interventions to promote well-being by reducing anxiety disorders (AD). Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is one of the most commonly used biosignals for assessing the cardiovascular system as it significantly reflects the activity of the autonomic nervous system during emotional changes. Little is known about the accuracy of using ECG features for detecting ADs. Moreover, during our literature review, a limited number of studies were found that involve ECG collection using WD for promoting mental well-being. Thus, for the sake of validating the reliability of ECG features for detecting anxiety in WD, we screened 1040 articles, and only 22 were considered for our study; specifically 6 on panic, 4 on post-traumatic stress, 4 on generalized anxiety, 3 on social, 3 on mixed, and 2 on obsessive-compulsive anxiety disorder articles. Most experimental studies had controversial results. Upon reviewing each of these papers, it became apparent that the use of ECG features for detecting different types of anxiety is controversial, and the use of ECG-WD is an emerging area of research, with limited evidence suggesting its reliability. Due to the clinical nature of most studies, it is difficult to determine the specific impact of ECG features on detecting ADs, suggesting the need for more robust studies following our proposed recommendations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it