Harnessing Consumer Wearable Digital Biomarkers for Individualized Recognition of Postpartum Depression Using the All of Us Research Program Data Set: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Postpartum depression (PPD) poses a significant maternal health challenge. The current approach to detecting PPD relies on in-person postpartum visits, which contributes to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, recognizing PPD symptoms can be challenging. Therefore, we explored the potential of using digital biomarkers from consumer wearables for PPD recognition. Objective The main goal of this study was to showcase the viability of using machine learning (ML) and digital biomarkers related to heart rate, physical activity, and energy expenditure derived from consumer-grade wearables for the recognition of PPD. Methods Using the All of Us Research Program Registered Tier v6 data set, we performed computational phenotyping of women with and without PPD following childbirth. Intraindividual ML models were developed using digital biomarkers from Fitbit to discern between prepregnancy, pregnancy, postpartum without depression, and postpartum with depression (ie, PPD diagnosis) periods. Models were built using generalized linear models, random forest, support vector machine, and k-nearest neighbor algorithms and evaluated using the κ statistic and multiclass area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (mAUC) to determine the algorithm with the best performance. The specificity of our individualized ML approach was confirmed in a cohort of women who gave birth and did not experience PPD. Moreover, we assessed the impact of a previous history of depression on model performance. We determined the variable importance for predicting the PPD period using Shapley additive explanations and confirmed the results using a permutation approach. Finally, we compared our individualized ML methodology against a traditional cohort-based ML model for PPD recognition and compared model performance using sensitivity, specificity, precision, recall, and F1-score. Results Patient cohorts of women with valid Fitbit data who gave birth included <20 with PPD and 39 without PPD. Our results demonstrated that intraindividual models using digital biomarkers discerned among prepregnancy, pregnancy, postpartum without depression, and postpartum with depression (ie, PPD diagnosis) periods, with random forest (mAUC=0.85; κ=0.80) models outperforming generalized linear models (mAUC=0.82; κ=0.74), support vector machine (mAUC=0.75; κ=0.72), and k-nearest neighbor (mAUC=0.74; κ=0.62). Model performance decreased in women without PPD, illustrating the method’s specificity. Previous depression history did not impact the efficacy of the model for PPD recognition. Moreover, we found that the most predictive biomarker of PPD was calories burned during the basal metabolic rate. Finally, individualized models surpassed the performance of a conventional cohort-based model for PPD detection. Conclusions This research establishes consumer wearables as a promising tool for PPD identification and highlights personalized ML approaches, which could transform early disease detection strategies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".