MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405020704 · doi:10.2196/63622

Multimodal Digital Phenotyping Study in Patients With Major Depressive Episodes and Healthy Controls (Mobile Monitoring of Mood): Observational Longitudinal Study

2024· article· en· W4405020704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Talayeh Aledavood, Nguyen Luong, Ilya Baryshnikov, Richard K. Darst, Roope Heikkilä, Joel Holmén, Arsi Ikäheimonen, Annasofia Martikkala, Kirsi Riihimäki, Outi Saleva, Ana María Triana, Erkki Isometsä

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOulun YliopistoJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsMoodActigraphyDepression (economics)Major depressive disorderMedicinePsychologyBorderline personality disorderClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mood disorders are among the most common mental health conditions worldwide. Wearables and consumer-grade personal digital devices create digital traces that can be collected, processed, and analyzed, offering a unique opportunity to quantify and monitor individuals with mental disorders in their natural living environments. OBJECTIVE: This study comprised (1) 3 subcohorts of patients with a major depressive episode, either with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or concurrent borderline personality disorder, and (2) a healthy control group. We investigated whether differences in behavioral patterns could be observed at the group level, that is, patients versus healthy controls. We studied the volume and temporal patterns of smartphone screen and app use, communication, sleep, mobility, and physical activity. We investigated whether patients or controls exhibited more homogenous temporal patterns of activity when compared with other individuals in the same group. We examined which variables were associated with the severity of depression. METHODS: In total, 188 participants were recruited to complete a 2-phase study. In the first 2 weeks, data from bed sensors, actigraphy, smartphones, and 5 sets of daily questions were collected. In the second phase, which lasted up to 1 year, only passive smartphone data and biweekly 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire data were collected. Survival analysis, statistical tests, and linear mixed models were performed. RESULTS: Survival analysis showed no statistically significant difference in adherence. Most participants did not stay in the study for 1 year. Weekday location variance showed lower values for patients (control: mean -10.04, SD 2.73; patient: mean -11.91, SD 2.50; Mann-Whitney U [MWU] test P=.004). Normalized entropy of location was lower among patients (control: mean 2.10, SD 1.38; patient: mean 1.57, SD 1.10; MWU test P=.05). The temporal communication patterns of controls were more diverse compared to those of patients (MWU test P<.001). In contrast, patients exhibited more varied temporal patterns of smartphone use compared to the controls. We found that the duration of incoming calls (β=-0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; P<.001) and the SD of activity magnitude (β=-2.05, 95% CI -4.18 to -0.20; P=.02) over the 14 days before the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire records were negatively associated with depression severity. Conversely, the duration of outgoing calls showed a positive association with depression severity (β=0.05, 95% CI 0.00-0.09; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our work shows the important features for future analyses of behavioral markers of mood disorders. However, among outpatients with mild to moderate depressive disorders, the group-level differences from healthy controls in any single modality remain relatively modest. Therefore, future studies need to combine data from multiple modalities to detect more subtle differences and identify individualized signatures. The high dropout rates for longer study periods remain a challenge and limit the generalizability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207