MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118899344 · doi:10.2196/24333

Smartphone-Based Self-Reports of Depressive Symptoms Using the Remote Monitoring Application in Psychiatry (ReMAP): Interformat Validation Study

2021· article· en· W3118899344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janik Goltermann, Daniel Emden, Elisabeth J. Leehr, Katharina Dohm, Ronny Redlich, Udo Dannlowski, Tim Hahn, Nils Opel

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBeck Depression InventoryIntraclass correlationAnxietyMoodDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychologyRating scalePsychiatryMajor depressive disorderPsychometricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based symptom monitoring has gained increased attention in psychiatric research as a cost-efficient tool for prospective and ecologically valid assessments based on participants' self-reports. However, a meaningful interpretation of smartphone-based assessments requires knowledge about their psychometric properties, especially their validity. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to systematically investigate the validity of smartphone-administered assessments of self-reported affective symptoms using the Remote Monitoring Application in Psychiatry (ReMAP). METHODS: The ReMAP app was distributed to 173 adult participants of ongoing, longitudinal psychiatric phenotyping studies, including healthy control participants, as well as patients with affective disorders and anxiety disorders; the mean age of the sample was 30.14 years (SD 11.92). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and single-item mood and sleep information were assessed via the ReMAP app and validated with non-smartphone-based BDI scores and clinician-rated depression severity using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). RESULTS: We found overall high comparability between smartphone-based and non-smartphone-based BDI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.921; P<.001). Smartphone-based BDI scores further correlated with non-smartphone-based HDRS ratings of depression severity in a subsample (r=0.783; P<.001; n=51). Higher agreement between smartphone-based and non-smartphone-based assessments was found among affective disorder patients as compared to healthy controls and anxiety disorder patients. Highly comparable agreement between delivery formats was found across age and gender groups. Similarly, smartphone-based single-item self-ratings of mood correlated with BDI sum scores (r=-0.538; P<.001; n=168), while smartphone-based single-item sleep duration correlated with the sleep item of the BDI (r=-0.310; P<.001; n=166). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that smartphone-based monitoring of depressive symptoms via the ReMAP app provides valid assessments of depressive symptomatology and, therefore, represents a useful tool for prospective digital phenotyping in affective disorder patients in clinical and research applications.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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