The Use of Photoplethysmography in the Assessment of Mental Health: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> With the rise in mental health problems globally, mobile health provides opportunities for timely medical care and accessibility. One emerging area of mobile health involves the use of photoplethysmography (PPG) to assess and monitor mental health. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of PPG-based technology for mental health. Therefore, we conducted a review to understand how PPG has been evaluated to assess a range of mental health and psychological problems, including stress, depression, and anxiety. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> A scoping review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> A total of 24 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. We identified studies that assessed mental health via PPG using finger- and face-based methods as well as smartphone-based methods. There was variation in study quality. PPG holds promise as a potential complementary technology for detecting changes in mental health, including depression and anxiety. However, rigorous validation is needed in diverse clinical populations to advance PPG technology in tackling mental health problems. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> PPG holds promise for assessing mental health problems; however, more research is required before it can be widely recommended for clinical use. </sec>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".