Momentary Depression Severity Prediction in Patients With Acute Depression Who Undergo Sleep Deprivation Therapy: Speech-Based Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile devices for remote monitoring are inevitable tools to support treatment and patient care, especially in recurrent diseases such as major depressive disorder. The aim of this study was to learn if machine learning (ML) models based on longitudinal speech data are helpful in predicting momentary depression severity. Data analyses were based on a dataset including 30 inpatients during an acute depressive episode receiving sleep deprivation therapy in stationary care, an intervention inducing a rapid change in depressive symptoms in a relatively short period of time. Using an ambulatory assessment approach, we captured speech samples and assessed concomitant depression severity via self-report questionnaire over the course of 3 weeks (before, during, and after therapy). We extracted 89 speech features from the speech samples using the Extended Geneva Minimalistic Acoustic Parameter Set from the Open-Source Speech and Music Interpretation by Large-Space Extraction (audEERING) toolkit and the additional parameter speech rate. Objective: We aimed to understand if a multiparameter ML approach would significantly improve the prediction compared to previous statistical analyses, and, in addition, which mechanism for splitting training and test data was most successful, especially focusing on the idea of personalized prediction. Methods: To do so, we trained and evaluated a set of >500 ML pipelines including random forest, linear regression, support vector regression, and Extreme Gradient Boosting regression models and tested them on 5 different train-test split scenarios: a group 5-fold nested cross-validation at the subject level, a leave-one-subject-out approach, a chronological split, an odd-even split, and a random split. Results: In the 5-fold cross-validation, the leave-one-subject-out, and the chronological split approaches, none of the models were statistically different from random chance. The other two approaches produced significant results for at least one of the models tested, with similar performance. In total, the superior model was an Extreme Gradient Boosting in the odd-even split approach (R²=0.339, mean absolute error=0.38; both P<.001), indicating that 33.9% of the variance in depression severity could be predicted by the speech features. Conclusions: Overall, our analyses highlight that ML fails to predict depression scores of unseen patients, but prediction performance increased strongly compared to our previous analyses with multilevel models. We conclude that future personalized ML models might improve prediction performance even more, leading to better patient management and care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".