Digital Phenotyping in Health Using Machine Learning Approaches: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital phenotyping is the real-time collection of individual-level active and passive data from users in naturalistic and free-living settings via personal digital devices, such as mobile phones and wearable devices. Given the novelty of research in this field, there is heterogeneity in the clinical use cases, types of data collected, modes of data collection, data analysis methods, and outcomes measured. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this scoping review was to map the published research on digital phenotyping and to outline study characteristics, data collection and analysis methods, machine learning approaches, and future implications. METHODS: We utilized an a priori approach for the literature search and data extraction and charting process, guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). We identified relevant studies published in 2020, 2021, and 2022 on PubMed and Google Scholar using search terms related to digital phenotyping. The titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened during the first stage of the screening process, and the second stage involved screening the full texts of the shortlisted articles. We extracted and charted the descriptive characteristics of the final studies, which were countries of origin, study design, clinical areas, active and/or passive data collected, modes of data collection, data analysis approaches, and limitations. RESULTS: A total of 454 articles on PubMed and Google Scholar were identified through search terms associated with digital phenotyping, and 46 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in this scoping review. Most studies evaluated wearable data and originated from North America. The most dominant study design was observational, followed by randomized trials, and most studies focused on psychiatric disorders, mental health disorders, and neurological diseases. A total of 7 studies used machine learning approaches for data analysis, with random forest, logistic regression, and support vector machines being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides foundational as well as application-oriented approaches toward digital phenotyping in health. Future work should focus on more prospective, longitudinal studies that include larger data sets from diverse populations, address privacy and ethical concerns around data collection from consumer technologies, and build "digital phenotypes" to personalize digital health interventions and treatment plans.
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 | 0.041 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".