MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108615578 · doi:10.2196/24045

Clinical Advice by Voice Assistants on Postpartum Depression: Cross-Sectional Investigation Using Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Microsoft Cortana

2020· article· en· W3108615578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel Yang, Jennifer Lee, Emre Sezgın, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Simon Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthTest (biology)Advice (programming)MoodMedicineIntervention (counseling)PsychologyFamily medicineMedical emergencyComputer sciencePsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A voice assistant (VA) is inanimate audio-interfaced software augmented with artificial intelligence, capable of 2-way dialogue, and increasingly used to access health care advice. Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common perinatal mood disorder with an annual estimated cost of $14.2 billion. Only a small percentage of PPD patients seek care due to lack of screening and insufficient knowledge of the disease, and this is, therefore, a prime candidate for a VA-based digital health intervention. OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the capability of VAs, our aim was to assess VA responses to PPD questions in terms of accuracy, verbal response, and clinically appropriate advice given. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined four VAs (Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Microsoft Cortana) installed on two mobile devices in early 2020. We posed 14 questions to each VA that were retrieved from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) patient-focused Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on PPD. We scored the VA responses according to accuracy of speech recognition, presence of a verbal response, and clinically appropriate advice in accordance with ACOG FAQ, which were assessed by two board-certified physicians. RESULTS: Accurate recognition of the query ranged from 79% to 100%. Verbal response ranged from 36% to 79%. If no verbal response was given, queries were treated like a web search between 33% and 89% of the time. Clinically appropriate advice given by VA ranged from 14% to 29%. We compared the category proportions using the Fisher exact test. No single VA statistically outperformed other VAs in the three performance categories. Additional observations showed that two VAs (Google Assistant and Microsoft Cortana) included advertisements in their responses. CONCLUSIONS: While the best performing VA gave clinically appropriate advice to 29% of the PPD questions, all four VAs taken together achieved 64% clinically appropriate advice. All four VAs performed well in accurately recognizing a PPD query, but no VA achieved even a 30% threshold for providing clinically appropriate PPD information. Technology companies and clinical organizations should partner to improve guidance, screen patients for mental health disorders, and educate patients on potential treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations75
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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