A narrative review of digital biomarkers in the management of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant forms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Depression is the leading cause of worldwide disability, until now only 3% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiences full recovery or remission. Different studies have tried to better understand MDD pathophysiology and its resistant forms (TRD), focusing on the identification of candidate biomarkers that would be able to reflect the patients' state and the effects of therapy. Development of digital technologies can generate useful digital biomarkers in a real-world setting. This review aims to focus on the use of digital technologies measuring symptom severity and predicting treatment outcomes for individuals with mood disorders. Methods: Two databases (PubMed and APA PsycINFO) were searched to retrieve papers published from January 1, 2013, to July 30, 2023, on the use of digital devices in persons with MDD. All papers had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of 12 articles. Results: Research on digital biomarkers confronts four core aspects: (I) predicting diagnostic status, (II) assessing symptom severity and progression, (III) identifying treatment response and (IV) monitoring real-word and ecological validity. Different wearable technologies have been applied to collect physiological, activity/sleep, or subjective data to explore their relationships with depression. Discussion: Depression's stable rates and high relapse risk necessitate innovative approaches. Wearable devices hold promise for continuous monitoring and data collection in real world setting. Conclusion: More studies are needed to translate these digital biomarkers into actionable interventions to improve depression diagnosis, monitoring and management. Future challenges will be the applications of wearable devices routinely in personalized medicine.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".