Smartphone Ecological Momentary Assessment and Wearable Activity Tracking in Pediatric Depression: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescent depression is a significant public health concern. The presentation of depressive symptoms varies widely among individuals, fluctuating in intensity over time. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) offers a unique advantage by enhancing ecological validity and reducing recall bias, allowing for a more accurate and nuanced understanding of major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms. This methodology provides valuable insights into the fluctuating nature of depression, which could inform more personalized and timely interventions. Objective: This study aims to (1) evaluate the feasibility of collecting smartphone-based EMA data alongside activity and sleep tracking in adolescents with depression; (2) investigate the severity and variability of mood symptoms reported over time; and (3) explore the relationship between mood, activity, and sleep. Methods: Thirty-six participants (23 with MDD, 13 unaffected controls; 75% [n=27] female, mean age 19.50 y) completed twice-daily EMA check-ins over 2 weeks, complemented by continuous activity and sleep monitoring using FitBit Charge 3 devices. The study examined feasibility, usability of the EMA app, symptom severity and variability, and relationships between mood, activity, and sleep. We applied linear mixed-effects regression to the data to examine relationships between variables. Results: Participants completed a total of 923 unique check-ins (mean check-ins per participant=25.60). Overall compliance rates were high (91.57%), indicating the approach is highly feasible. MDD participants demonstrated greater symptom severity and variability over time compared with controls (β=34.48, P<.001). Individuals with MDD exhibited greater diurnal variation (β=-2.54, P<.001) with worse mood in the morning and worse mood than anxiety scores over time (β=-6.93, P<.001). Life stress was a significant predictor of more severe EMA scores (β=24.50, P<.001). MDD cases exhibited more inconsistent sleep patterns (β=32.14, P<.001), shorter total sleep times (β=-94.38, P<.001), and a higher frequency of naps (β=14.05, P<.001). MDD cases took fewer steps per day (mean 5828.64, SD 6188.85) than controls (mean 7088.47, SD 5378.18) over the course of the study, but this difference was not significant (P=.33), and activity levels were not significantly predictive of EMA score (P=.75). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of integrating smartphone-based EMA with wearable activity tracking in adolescents with depression. High compliance rates support the practicality of this approach, while EMA data provide valuable insights into the dynamic nature of depressive symptoms, particularly in relation to sleep and life stress. Future studies should validate these findings in larger, more diverse samples. Clinically, EMA and wearable tracking may enhance routine assessments and inform personalized interventions by capturing symptom variability and external influences in real time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".