MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284976954 · doi:10.2196/39371

The Prediction of Suicidal Ideation as a Function of Daily Mood and Anxiety Scores Collected Using mHealth Technology in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Depression

2022· article· en· W4284976954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Parit A. Patel, Grace Chan, Bing Wang, Jayesh Kamath

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationAnxietyMoodmHealthDepression (economics)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryTolerabilityPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychological interventionAdverse effectMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Suicide is one of the most common causes of death in the United States. The rates of suicide have increased by 33% in the period 1999-2019. In 2019, suicide was responsible for one death every 11 minutes. Clinically, a previous history of suicide attempts is the main risk factor, as well as the presence of comorbid conditions like depression and anxiety. Accurate and real-time prediction of suicidal thoughts may lead to improved management of patients with depression. Prediction of suicidality is difficult due to its day-to-day variability in relation to mood and anxiety symptoms. This can be overcome with the advent of mobile health (mHealth) technology that can capture granular data scores at a higher frequency than conventional therapeutic visitations. Objective The aim of this study is to predict suicidal ideation using self-reported mood and anxiety in patients undergoing treatment for depression. Methods This study will use data from the DepWatch study, an mHealth study that uses the DepWatch app developed by our research group. The objective of this longitudinal study is to develop an mHealth-based, personalized diagnostic prediction system for patients undergoing treatment for depression. Patients are followed over 12 weeks using electronic assessments conducted via the DepWatch app installed on their smartphones. The electronic assessments include the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR), conducted on a weekly basis, and weekly medication adherence and medication safety and tolerability questionnaires. The assessments include brief mood and anxiety assessments conducted on a daily basis. Generalized estimating equation modeling for a binary outcome (the presence or absence of suicidal thought), clustered by individual subjects, will be used. The key explanatory variables are the daily mood and anxiety levels (time variant). The outcome variable is suicidal ideation as determined by the self-reported subject response to question 12 (about suicidality) on the QIDS-SR scale. Variables that show significance at P values <.1 are subsequently used in the multivariate model, in addition to mood and anxiety. Results A total of 34 subjects are in the interim analysis set. The median age is 26 years, 85.3% are female, and 64.7% are White. In addition, 38.2% either have a college degree or graduate education, while 23.5% are unemployed and 41.1% are full-time employed. About half of participants (52.9%) earn less than $50,000 annually and 61% have never smoked. Univariate analysis shows statistical significance of gender, race, aggregate anxiety, and employment status at .1 significance level. In the multivariate model, only gender and employment status are significant at .05. Race is marginally insignificant (P=.068). Conclusions Suicidality and completed suicides are significant public health problems, especially in patients with depression. The mHealth technology and statistical modelling that captures daily variability in anxiety leading up to suicidal ideation can help predict suicidality. Conflicts of Interest None declared.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207