Optimizing Outcomes in Psychotherapy for Anxiety Disorders Using Smartphone-Based and Passive Sensing Features: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychotherapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), currently have the strongest evidence of durable symptom changes for most psychological disorders, such as anxiety disorders. Nevertheless, only about half of individuals treated with CBT benefit from it. Predictive algorithms, including digital assessments and passive sensing features, could better identify patients who would benefit from CBT, and thus, improve treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish predictive features that forecast responses to transdiagnostic CBT in anxiety disorders and to investigate key mechanisms underlying treatment responses. METHODS: This study is a 2-armed randomized controlled clinical trial. We include patients with anxiety disorders who are randomized to either a transdiagnostic CBT group or a waitlist (referred to as WAIT). We index key features to predict responses prior to starting treatment using subjective self-report questionnaires, experimental tasks, biological samples, ecological momentary assessments, activity tracking, and smartphone-based passive sensing to derive a multimodal feature set for predictive modeling. Additional assessments take place weekly at mid- and posttreatment and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups to index anxiety and depression symptom severity. We aim to include 150 patients, randomized to CBT versus WAIT at a 3:1 ratio. The data set will be subject to full feature and important features selected by minimal redundancy and maximal relevance feature selection and then fed into machine leaning models, including eXtreme gradient boosting, pattern recognition network, and k-nearest neighbors to forecast treatment response. The performance of the developed models will be evaluated. In addition to predictive modeling, we will test specific mechanistic hypotheses (eg, association between self-efficacy, daily symptoms obtained using ecological momentary assessments, and treatment response) to elucidate mechanisms underlying treatment response. RESULTS: The trial is now completed. It was approved by the Cantonal Ethics Committee, Zurich. The results will be disseminated through publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this trial is to improve current CBT treatment by precise forecasting of treatment response and by understanding and potentially augmenting underpinning mechanisms and personalizing treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945617; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT03945617. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42547.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".