The Passive Monitoring of Depression and Anxiety Among Workers Using Digital Biomarkers Based on Their Physical Activity and Working Conditions: 2-Week Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital data on physical activity are useful for self-monitoring and preventing depression and anxiety. Although previous studies have reported machine or deep learning models that use physical activity for passive monitoring of depression and anxiety, there are no models for workers. The working population has different physical activity patterns from other populations, which is based on commuting, holiday patterns, physical demands, occupations, and industries. These working conditions are useful in optimizing the model used in predicting depression and anxiety. Further, recurrent neural networks increase predictive accuracy by using previous inputs on physical activity, depression, and anxiety. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance of a deep learning model optimized for predicting depression and anxiety in workers. Psychological distress was considered a depression and anxiety indicator. METHODS: A 2-week longitudinal study was conducted with workers in urban areas in Japan. Absent workers were excluded. In a daily survey, psychological distress was measured using a self-reported questionnaire. As features, activity time by intensity was determined using the Google Fit application. Additionally, we measured age, gender, occupations, employment status, work shift types, working hours, and whether the response date was a working or nonworking day. A deep learning model, using long short-term memory, was developed and validated to predict psychological distress the next day, using features of the previous day. Further, a 5-fold cross-validation method was used to evaluate the performance of the aforementioned model. As the primary indicator of performance, classification accuracy for the severity of the psychological distress (light, subthreshold, and severe) was considered. RESULTS: A total of 1661 days of supervised data were obtained from 236 workers, who were aged between 20 and 69 years. The overall classification accuracy for psychological distress was 76.3% (SD 0.04%). The classification accuracy for severe-, subthreshold-, and light-level psychological distress was 51.1% (SD 0.05%), 60.6% (SD 0.05%), and 81.6% (SD 0.04%), respectively. The model predicted a light-level psychological distress the next day after the participants had been involved in 3 peaks of activity (in the morning, noon, and evening) on the previous day. Lower activity levels were predicted as subthreshold- and severe-level psychological distress. Different predictive results were observed on the basis of occupations and whether the previous day was a working or nonworking day. CONCLUSIONS: The developed deep learning model showed a similar performance as in previous studies and, in particular, high accuracy for light-level psychological distress. Working conditions and long short-term memory were useful in maintaining the model performance for monitoring depression and anxiety, using digitally recorded physical activity in workers. The developed model can be implemented in mobile apps and may further be practically used by workers to self-monitor and maintain their mental health state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".