Digital Phenotyping Data to Predict Symptom Improvement and App Personalization: Protocol for a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphone apps that capture surveys and sensors are increasingly being leveraged to collect data on clinical conditions. In mental health, this data could be used to personalize psychiatric support offered by apps so that they are more effective and engaging. Yet today, few mental health apps offer this type of support, often because of challenges associated with accurately predicting users' actual future mental health. OBJECTIVE: In this protocol, we present a study design to explore engagement with mental health apps in college students, using the Technology Acceptance Model as a theoretical framework, and assess the accuracy of predicting mental health changes using digital phenotyping data. METHODS: There are two main goals of this study. First, we present a logistic regression model fit on data from a prior study on college students and prospectively test this model on a new student cohort to assess its accuracy. Second, we will provide users with data-driven activity suggestions every 4 days to determine whether this type of personalization will increase engagement or attitudes toward the app compared to those receiving no personalized recommendations. RESULTS: The study was completed in the spring of 2022, and the manuscript is currently in review at JMIR Publications. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first digital phenotyping algorithms to be prospectively validated. Overall, our results will inform the potential of digital phenotyping data to serve as tailoring data in adaptive interventions and to increase rates of engagement. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37954.
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 | 0.044 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.015 |
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".