MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404818325 · doi:10.2196/67192

Natural Language Processing and Social Determinants of Health in Mental Health Research: AI-Assisted Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4404818325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dmitry Scherbakov, Nina Hubig, Leslie Lenert, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Jihad S. Obeid

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsPreprintMental healthPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The use of natural language processing (NLP) in mental health research is increasing, with a wide range of applications and datasets being investigated. Objective: This review aims to summarize the use of NLP in mental health research, with a special focus on the types of text datasets and the use of social determinants of health (SDOH) in NLP projects related to mental health. Methods: The search was conducted in September 2024 using a broad search strategy in PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete. All citations were uploaded to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) software. The screening and extraction process took place in Covidence with the help of a custom large language model (LLM) module developed by our team. This LLM module was calibrated and tuned to automate many aspects of the review process. Results: The screening process, assisted by the custom LLM, led to the inclusion of 1768 studies in the final review. Most of the reviewed studies (n=665, 42.8%) used clinical data as their primary text dataset, followed by social media datasets (n=523, 33.7%). The United States contributed the highest number of studies (n=568, 36.6%), with depression (n=438, 28.2%) and suicide (n=240, 15.5%) being the most frequently investigated mental health issues. Traditional demographic variables, such as age (n=877, 56.5%) and gender (n=760, 49%), were commonly extracted, while SDOH factors were less frequently reported, with urban or rural status being the most used (n=19, 1.2%). Over half of the citations (n=826, 53.2%) did not provide clear information on dataset accessibility, although a sizable number of studies (n=304, 19.6%) made their datasets publicly available. Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the significant role of clinical notes and social media in NLP-based mental health research. Despite the clear relevance of SDOH to mental health, their underutilization presents a gap in current research. This review can be a starting point for researchers looking for an overview of mental health projects using text data. Shared datasets could be used to place more emphasis on SDOH in future studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207