A Fast and Minimal System to Identify Depression Using Smartphones: Explainable Machine Learning–Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing robust, pervasive device-based systems developed in recent years to detect depression require data collected over a long period and may not be effective in cases where early detection is crucial. Additionally, due to the requirement of running systems in the background for prolonged periods, existing systems can be resource inefficient. As a result, these systems can be infeasible in low-resource settings. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective was to develop a minimalistic system to identify depression using data retrieved in the fastest possible time. Another objective was to explain the machine learning (ML) models that were best for identifying depression. METHODS: We developed a fast tool that retrieves the past 7 days' app usage data in 1 second (mean 0.31, SD 1.10 seconds). A total of 100 students from Bangladesh participated in our study, and our tool collected their app usage data and responses to the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. To identify depressed and nondepressed students, we developed a diverse set of ML models: linear, tree-based, and neural network-based models. We selected important features using the stable approach, along with 3 main types of feature selection (FS) approaches: filter, wrapper, and embedded methods. We developed and validated the models using the nested cross-validation method. Additionally, we explained the best ML models through the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) method. RESULTS: Leveraging only the app usage data retrieved in 1 second, our light gradient boosting machine model used the important features selected by the stable FS approach and correctly identified 82.4% (n=42) of depressed students (precision=75%, F1-score=78.5%). Moreover, after comprehensive exploration, we presented a parsimonious stacking model where around 5 features selected by the all-relevant FS approach Boruta were used in each iteration of validation and showed a maximum precision of 77.4% (balanced accuracy=77.9%). Feature importance analysis suggested app usage behavioral markers containing diurnal usage patterns as being more important than aggregated data-based markers. In addition, a SHAP analysis of our best models presented behavioral markers that were related to depression. For instance, students who were not depressed spent more time on education apps on weekdays, whereas those who were depressed used a higher number of photo and video apps and also had a higher deviation in using photo and video apps over the morning, afternoon, evening, and night time periods of the weekend. CONCLUSIONS: Due to our system's fast and minimalistic nature, it may make a worthwhile contribution to identifying depression in underdeveloped and developing regions. In addition, our detailed discussion about the implication of our findings can facilitate the development of less resource-intensive systems to better understand students who are depressed and take steps for intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".