MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130820279 · doi:10.2196/14179

Ecological Momentary Assessment Using Smartphones in Patients With Depression: Feasibility Study

2021· article· en· W3130820279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Redwan Maatoug, Nathan Peiffer‐Smadja, Guillaume Delval, Térence Brochu, Benjamin Pitrat, Bruno Millet

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondation Pierre Deniker pour la Recherche et la Prévention en Santé Mentale
KeywordsMoodDepression (economics)Smartphone appRating scaleSmartphone applicationDashboardMobile appsData collectionOutpatient clinicMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyData scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMultimediaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a promising tool in the management of psychiatric disorders and particularly depression. It allows for a real-time evaluation of symptoms and an earlier detection of relapse or treatment efficacy. The generalization of the smartphone in the modern world offers a new, large-scale support for EMA. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was twofold: (1) to assess patients' compliance with an EMA smartphone app defined by the number of EMAs completed, and (2) to estimate the external validity of the EMA using a correlation between self-esteem/guilt/mood variables and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score. METHODS: Eleven patients at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, were monitored for 28 days by means of a smartphone app. Every patient enrolled in the study had two types of assessment: (1) three outpatient consultations with a psychiatrist at three different time points (days 1, 15, and 28), and (2) real-time data collection using an EMA smartphone app with a single, fixed notification per day at 3 pm for 28 days. The results of the real-time data collected were reviewed during the three outpatient consultations by a psychiatrist using a dashboard that aggregated all of the patients' data into a user-friendly format. RESULTS: Of the 11 patients in the study, 6 patients attended the 3 outpatient consultations with the psychiatrist and completed the HDRS at each consultation. We found a positive correlation between the HDRS score and the variables of self-esteem, guilt, and mood (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.57). Seven patients completed the daily EMAs for 28 days or longer, with an average response rate to the EMAs of 62.5% (175/280). Furthermore, we observed a positive correlation between the number of responses to EMAs and the duration of follow-up (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study with a prolonged follow-up demonstrates significant patient compliance with the smartphone app. In addition, the self-assessments performed by patients seemed faithful to the standardized measurements performed by the psychiatrist. The results also suggest that for some patients it is more convenient to use the smartphone app than to attend outpatient consultations.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207