Smartphone Sensor Data for Identifying and Monitoring Symptoms of Mood Disorders: A Longitudinal Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mood disorders are burdensome illnesses that often go undetected and untreated. Sensor technologies within smartphones may provide an opportunity for identifying the early changes in circadian rhythm and social support/connectedness that signify the onset of a depressive or manic episode. OBJECTIVE: Using smartphone sensor data, this study investigated the relationship between circadian rhythm, which was determined by GPS data, and symptoms of mental health among a clinical sample of adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. METHODS: A total of 121 participants were recruited from a clinical setting to take part in a 10-week observational study. Self-report questionnaires for mental health outcomes, social support, social connectedness, and quality of life were assessed at 6 time points throughout the study period. Participants consented to passively sharing their smartphone GPS data for the duration of the study. Circadian rhythm (ie, regularity of location changes in a 24-hour rhythm) was extracted from GPS mobility patterns at baseline. RESULTS: =0.049). In participants with bipolar disorder, circadian rhythm was associated with a change in anxiety from baseline; a higher circadian rhythm was associated with an increase in anxiety and a lower circadian rhythm was associated with a decrease in anxiety at time point 5. CONCLUSIONS: Circadian rhythm, which was extracted from smartphone GPS data, was associated with social support and predicted changes in anxiety in a clinical sample of adults with mood disorders. Larger studies are required for further validations. However, smartphone sensing may have the potential to monitor early symptoms of mood disorders.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".