Beyond Step Count: Are We Ready to Use Digital Phenotyping to Make Actionable Individual Predictions in Psychiatry?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some models for mental disorders or behaviors (eg, suicide) have been successfully developed, allowing predictions at the population level. However, current demographic and clinical variables are neither sensitive nor specific enough for making individual actionable clinical predictions. A major hope of the "Decade of the Brain" was that biological measures (biomarkers) would solve these issues and lead to precision psychiatry. However, as models are based on sociodemographic and clinical data, even when these biomarkers differ significantly between groups of patients and control participants, they are still neither sensitive nor specific enough to be applied to individual patients. Technological advances over the past decade offer a promising approach based on new measures that may be essential for understanding mental disorders and predicting their trajectories. Several new tools allow us to continuously monitor objective behavioral measures (eg, hours of sleep) and densely sample subjective measures (eg, mood). The promise of this approach, referred to as digital phenotyping, was recognized almost a decade ago, with its potential impact on psychiatry being compared to the impact of the microscope on biological sciences. However, despite the intuitive belief that collecting densely sampled data (big data) improves clinical outcomes, recent clinical trials have not shown that incorporating digital phenotyping improves clinical outcomes. This viewpoint provides a stepwise development and implementation approach, similar to the one that has been successful in the prediction and prevention of cardiovascular disease, to achieve clinically actionable predictions in psychiatry.
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 | 0.026 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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".