MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235041202 · doi:10.2196/preprints.26234

Clinical Utility of Wearable Sensors and Patient-Reported Surveys in Patients With Schizophrenia: Noninterventional, Observational Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4235041202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrienne C. Lahti, Dai Wang, Huiling Pei, Susan Baker, Vaibhav A. Narayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPsychosocialMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Rating scaleDepression (economics)Global Assessment of FunctioningPsychiatryClinical Global ImpressionPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicineSleep qualityInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Relapse in schizophrenia may be preceded by early warning signs of biological, sensory, and clinical status. Early detection of warning signs may facilitate intervention and prevent relapses. OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using wearable devices and self-reported technologies to identify symptom exacerbation correlates and relapse in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS In this observational study, patients with schizophrenia were provided with remote sensing devices to continuously monitor activity (Garmin vivofit) and sleep (Philips Actiwatch), and smartphones were used to record patient-reported outcomes. Clinical assessments of symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) were performed biweekly, and other clinical scales on symptoms (Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia, Calgary Depression Scale), psychosocial functioning, physical activity (Yale Physical Activity Survey), and sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) were assessed every 4 weeks. Patients were observed for 4 months, and correlations between clinical assessments and aggregated device metrics data were assessed using a mixed-effect model. An elastic net model was used to predict the clinical symptoms based on the device features. RESULTS Of the 40 patients enrolled, 1 patient relapsed after being stable with evaluable postbaseline data. Weekly patient-reported outcomes were moderately correlated with psychiatric symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score, r=0.29; Calgary Depression Scale total score, r=0.37; and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, r=0.3). In the elastic net model, sleep and activity features derived from Philips Actigraph and Garmin vivofit were predictive of the sitting index of the Yale Physical Activity Survey and sleep duration component of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. On the basis of the combined patient data, a high percentage of data coverage and compliance (>80%) was observed for each device. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that wearable devices and smartphones could be effectively deployed and potentially used to monitor patients with schizophrenia. Furthermore, metrics-based prediction models can assist in detecting earlier signs of symptom changes. The operational learnings from this study may provide insights to conduct future studies. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02224430; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02224430

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)0.003
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→