Digital Phenotyping for Differential Diagnosis of Major Depressive Episode: Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive episode (MDE) is a common clinical syndrome. It can be found in different pathologies such as major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or even occur in the context of psychological trauma. However, only 1 syndrome is described in international classifications (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [DSM-5]/International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision [ICD-11]), which do not take into account the underlying pathology at the origin of the MDE. Clinical interviews are currently the best source of information to obtain the etiological diagnosis of MDE. Nevertheless, it does not allow an early diagnosis and there are no objective measures of extracted clinical information. To remedy this, the use of digital tools and their correlation with clinical symptomatology could be useful. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review the current application of digital tools for MDE diagnosis while highlighting shortcomings for further research. In addition, our work was focused on digital devices easy to use during clinical interview and mental health issues where depression is common. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the use of digital tools during clinical interviews for MDE by searching papers published in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases since February 2010. The search was conducted from June to September 2021. Potentially relevant papers were then compared against a checklist for relevance and reviewed independently for inclusion, with focus on 4 allocated topics of (1) automated voice analysis, behavior analysis by (2) video and physiological measures, (3) heart rate variability (HRV), and (4) electrodermal activity (EDA). For this purpose, we were interested in 4 frequently found clinical conditions in which MDE can occur: (1) MDD, (2) BD, (3) PTSD, and (4) psychological trauma. RESULTS: A total of 74 relevant papers on the subject were qualitatively analyzed and the information was synthesized. Thus, a digital phenotype of MDE seems to emerge consisting of modifications in speech features (namely, temporal, prosodic, spectral, source, and formants) and in speech content, modifications in nonverbal behavior (head, hand, body and eyes movement, facial expressivity, and gaze), and a decrease in physiological measurements (HRV and EDA). We not only found similarities but also differences when MDE occurs in MDD, BD, PTSD, or psychological trauma. However, comparative studies were rare in BD or PTSD conditions, which does not allow us to identify clear and distinct digital phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our search identified markers from several modalities that hold promise for helping with a more objective diagnosis of MDE. To validate their potential, further longitudinal and prospective studies are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".