Depression Prediction by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment, Actiwatch Data, and Machine Learning: Observational Study on Older Adults Living Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although geriatric depression is prevalent, diagnosis using self-reporting instruments has limitations when measuring the depressed mood of older adults in a community setting. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) by using wearable devices could be used to collect data to classify older adults into depression groups. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a machine learning algorithm to predict the classification of depression groups among older adults living alone. We focused on utilizing diverse data collected through a survey, an Actiwatch, and an EMA report related to depression. METHODS: The prediction model using machine learning was developed in 4 steps: (1) data collection, (2) data processing and representation, (3) data modeling (feature engineering and selection), and (4) training and validation to test the prediction model. Older adults (N=47), living alone in community settings, completed an EMA to report depressed moods 4 times a day for 2 weeks between May 2017 and January 2018. Participants wore an Actiwatch that measured their activity and ambient light exposure every 30 seconds for 2 weeks. At baseline and the end of the 2-week observation, depressive symptoms were assessed using the Korean versions of the Short Geriatric Depression Scale (SGDS-K) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (K-HDRS). Conventional classification based on binary logistic regression was built and compared with 4 machine learning models (the logit, decision tree, boosted trees, and random forest models). RESULTS: On the basis of the SGDS-K and K-HDRS, 38% (18/47) of the participants were classified into the probable depression group. They reported significantly lower scores of normal mood and physical activity and higher levels of white and red, green, and blue (RGB) light exposures at different degrees of various 4-hour time frames (all P<.05). Sleep efficiency was chosen for modeling through feature selection. Comparing diverse combinations of the selected variables, daily mean EMA score, daily mean activity level, white and RGB light at 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm exposure, and daily sleep efficiency were selected for modeling. Conventional classification based on binary logistic regression had a good model fit (accuracy: 0.705; precision: 0.770; specificity: 0.859; and area under receiver operating characteristic curve or AUC: 0.754). Among the 4 machine learning models, the logit model had the best fit compared with the others (accuracy: 0.910; precision: 0.929; specificity: 0.940; and AUC: 0.960). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence for developing a machine learning program to predict the classification of depression groups in older adults living alone. Clinicians should consider using this method to identify underdiagnosed subgroups and monitor daily progression regarding treatment or therapeutic intervention in the community setting. Furthermore, more efforts are needed for researchers and clinicians to diversify data collection methods by using a survey, EMA, and a sensor.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".