Evaluating the Modified Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Insomnia Severity Index-2 for Daily Digital Screening of Depression and Insomnia: Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Insomnia Severity Index-2 (ISI-2) are screening assessments that reflect the past 2-week experience of depression and insomnia, respectively. Retrospective assessment has been associated with reduced accuracy owing to recall bias. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to increase the reliability of responses by validating the use of the PHQ-2 and ISI-2 for daily screening. METHODS: A total of 167 outpatients from the psychiatric department at the Yongin Severance Hospital participated in this study, of which 63 (37.7%) were male and 104 (62.3%) were female with a mean age of 35.1 (SD 12.1) years. Participants used a mobile app ("Mental Protector") for 4 weeks and rated their depressive and insomnia symptoms daily on the modified PHQ-2 and ISI-2 scales. The validation assessments were conducted in 2 blocks, each with a fortnight response from the participants. The modified version of the PHQ-2 was evaluated against the conventional scales of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Korean version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised. RESULTS: According to the sensitivity and specificity analyses, an average score of 3.29 on the modified PHQ-2 was considered valid for screening for depressive symptoms. Similarly, the ISI-2 was evaluated against the conventional scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and a mean score of 3.50 was determined to be a valid threshold for insomnia symptoms when rated daily. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to propose a daily digital screening measure for depression and insomnia delivered through a mobile app. The modified PHQ-2 and ISI-2 were strong candidates for daily screening of depression and insomnia, respectively.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".