MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297358936 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3208470

Predicting Depression in Canada by Automatic Filling of Beck’s Depression Inventory Questionnaire

2022· article· en· W4297358936 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruba Skaik, Diana Inkpen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBeck Depression InventoryDepression (economics)Inventory managementPsychologyComputer scienceOperations managementPsychiatryEngineeringAnxietyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk for depression and anxiety increased as people adjusted to a new normal after the COVID-19 pandemic. Early detection and appropriate onset treatment and support can reduce the consequences of depression. Automatic detection of depression in social media has recently become an important area of investigation. However, because of the lack of extensive annotated data, we propose a method for using a model that learns to answer a depression questionnaire and apply it to make population-level predictions. We used the eRisk 2021 Task 3 training dataset to build an automated model to fill the Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI) questionnaire.We selected the best performing model for each group of questions based on predefined metrics and consolidated those models into one model (called the <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">BDI_Multi_Model</i> ). The <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">BDI_Multi_Model</i> achieved better performance than the state-of-the-art for this challenging task. Then, we used this model for inference on a Canadian population dataset and compared its predictions with the statistics of the most recent mental health survey conducted by Statistics Canada. The correlation between the inference of the answered questionnaire based on our <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">BDI_Multi_Model</i> and the official statistics showed a strong Pearson correlation of 0.90.

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 score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207