MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014791296 · doi:10.2196/17116

Psychiatric Profiles of eHealth Users Evaluated Using Data Mining Techniques: Cohort Study

2020· article· en· W3014791296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jorge López‐Castromán, Diana Abad‐Tortosa, Aurora Cobo Aguilera, Philippe Courtet, María Luisa Barrigón, Antonio Artés-Rodrı́guez, Enrique Baca‐García

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesComunidad de MadridAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention
KeywordsMental healthLogineHealthMedicineCohortMedical diagnosisPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceHealth careComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: New technologies are changing access to medical records and the relationship between physicians and patients. Professionals can now use e-mental health tools to provide prompt and personalized responses to patients with mental illness. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the digital phenotypes of patients who use e-mental health apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reveal the profiles of users of a mental health app through machine learning techniques. METHODS: We applied a nonparametric model, the Sparse Poisson Factorization Model, to discover latent features in the response patterns of 2254 psychiatric outpatients to a short self-assessment on general health. The assessment was completed through a mental health app after the first login. RESULTS: The results showed the following four different profiles of patients: (1) all patients had feelings of worthlessness, aggressiveness, and suicidal ideas; (2) one in four reported low energy and difficulties to cope with problems; (3) less than a quarter described depressive symptoms with extremely high scores in suicidal thoughts and aggressiveness; and (4) a small number, possibly with the most severe conditions, reported a combination of all these features. CONCLUSIONS: User profiles did not overlap with clinician-made diagnoses. Since each profile seems to be associated with a different level of severity, the profiles could be useful for the prediction of behavioral risks among users of e-mental health apps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207