Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Data Preprocessing Techniques for Detecting, Predicting, and Monitoring Stress and Stress-Related Mental Disorders: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental stress and its consequent mental health disorders (MDs) constitute a significant public health issue. With the advent of machine learning (ML), there is potential to harness computational techniques for better understanding and addressing mental stress and MDs. This comprehensive review seeks to elucidate the current ML methodologies used in this domain to pave the way for enhanced detection, prediction, and analysis of mental stress and its subsequent MDs. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to investigate the scope of ML methodologies used in the detection, prediction, and analysis of mental stress and its consequent MDs. METHODS: Using a rigorous scoping review process with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, this investigation delves into the latest ML algorithms, preprocessing techniques, and data types used in the context of stress and stress-related MDs. RESULTS: A total of 98 peer-reviewed publications were examined for this review. The findings highlight that support vector machine, neural network, and random forest models consistently exhibited superior accuracy and robustness among all ML algorithms examined. Physiological parameters such as heart rate measurements and skin response are prevalently used as stress predictors due to their rich explanatory information concerning stress and stress-related MDs, as well as the relative ease of data acquisition. The application of dimensionality reduction techniques, including mappings, feature selection, filtering, and noise reduction, is frequently observed as a crucial step preceding the training of ML algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesis of this review identified significant research gaps and outlines future directions for the field. These encompass areas such as model interpretability, model personalization, the incorporation of naturalistic settings, and real-time processing capabilities for the detection and prediction of stress and stress-related MDs.
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 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".