A Smartphone App to Monitor Mood Symptoms in Bipolar Disorder: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is considerable scientific interest in finding new and innovative ways to capture rapid fluctuations in functioning within individuals with bipolar disorder (BD), a severe, recurrent mental disorder associated with frequent shifts in symptoms and functioning. The use of smartphones can provide valid and real-world tools for use in measurement-based care and could be used to inform more personalized treatment options for this group, which can improve standard of care. OBJECTIVE: We examined the feasibility and usability of a smartphone to capture daily fluctuations in mood within BD and to relate daily self-rated mood to smartphone use behaviors indicative of psychomotor activity or symptoms of the illness. METHODS: Participants were 26 individuals with BD and 12 healthy control individuals who were recruited from the Prechter Longitudinal Study of BD. All were given a smartphone with a custom-built app and prompted twice a day to complete questions of mood for 28 days. The app automatically and unobtrusively collected phone usage data. A poststudy satisfaction survey was also completed. RESULTS: Our sample showed a very high adherence rate to the daily momentary assessments (91% of the 58 prompts completed). Multivariate mixed effect models showed that an increase in rapid thoughts over time was associated with a decrease in outgoing text messages (β=-.02; P=.04), and an increase in impulsivity self-ratings was related to a decrease in total call duration (β=-.29; P=.02). Participants generally reported positive experiences using the smartphone and completing daily prompts. CONCLUSIONS: Use of mobile technology shows promise as a way to collect important clinical information that can be used to inform treatment decision making and monitor outcomes in a manner that is not overly burdensome to the patient or providers, highlighting its potential use in measurement-based care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".