MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403878729 · doi:10.2196/55856

Screening for Depression and Anxiety Using a Nonverbal Working Memory Task in a Sample of Older Brazilians: Observational Study of Preliminary Artificial Intelligence Model Transferability

2024· article· en· W4403878729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra L. Georgescu, Nicholas Cummins, Emilia Molimpakis, Eduardo Giacomazzi, Joana Rodrigues Marczyk, Stefano Goria

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research CentreKing's College LondonDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyTransferabilitySample (material)Depression (economics)PreprintTask (project management)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceMachine learningWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anxiety and depression represent prevalent yet frequently undetected mental health concerns within the older population. The challenge of identifying these conditions presents an opportunity for artificial intelligence (AI)-driven, remotely available, tools capable of screening and monitoring mental health. A critical criterion for such tools is their cultural adaptability to ensure effectiveness across diverse populations. Objective: This study aims to illustrate the preliminary transferability of two established AI models designed to detect high depression and anxiety symptom scores. The models were initially trained on data from a nonverbal working memory game (1- and 2-back tasks) in a dataset by thymia, a company that develops AI solutions for mental health and well-being assessments, encompassing over 6000 participants from the United Kingdom, United States, Mexico, Spain, and Indonesia. We seek to validate the models' performance by applying it to a new dataset comprising older Brazilian adults, thereby exploring its transferability and generalizability across different demographics and cultures. Methods: A total of 69 Brazilian participants aged 51-92 years old were recruited with the help of Laços Saúde, a company specializing in nurse-led, holistic home care. Participants received a link to the thymia dashboard every Monday and Thursday for 6 months. The dashboard had a set of activities assigned to them that would take 10-15 minutes to complete, which included a 5-minute game with two levels of the n-back tasks. Two Random Forest models trained on thymia data to classify depression and anxiety based on thresholds defined by scores of the Patient Health Questionnaire (8 items) (PHQ-8) ≥10 and those of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (7 items) (GAD-7) ≥10, respectively, were subsequently tested on the Laços Saúde patient cohort. Results: The depression classification model exhibited robust performance, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78, a specificity of 0.69, and a sensitivity of 0.72. The anxiety classification model showed an initial AUC of 0.63, with a specificity of 0.58 and a sensitivity of 0.64. This performance surpassed a benchmark model using only age and gender, which had AUCs of 0.47 for PHQ-8 and 0.53 for GAD-7. After recomputing the AUC scores on a cross-sectional subset of the data (the first n-back game session), we found AUCs of 0.79 for PHQ-8 and 0.76 for GAD-7. Conclusions: This study successfully demonstrates the preliminary transferability of two AI models trained on a nonverbal working memory task, one for depression and the other for anxiety classification, to a novel sample of older Brazilian adults. Future research could seek to replicate these findings in larger samples and other cultural contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.395
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→