Applying AI in the Context of the Association Between Device-Based Assessment of Physical Activity and Mental Health: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable technology is used by consumers worldwide for continuous activity monitoring in daily life but more recently also for classifying or predicting mental health parameters like stress or depression levels. Previous studies identified, based on traditional approaches, that physical activity is a relevant factor in the prevention or management of mental health. However, upcoming artificial intelligence methods have not yet been fully established in the research field of physical activity and mental health. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of studies that integrated passive monitoring of physical activity data measured via wearable technology in machine learning algorithms for the detection, prediction, or classification of mental health states and traits. METHODS: We conducted a review of studies processing wearable data to gain insights into mental health parameters. Eligibility criteria were (1) the study uses wearables or smartphones to acquire physical behavior and optionally other sensor measurement data, (2) the study must use machine learning to process the acquired data, and (3) the study had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal. Studies were identified via a systematic search in 5 electronic databases. RESULTS: Of 11,057 unique search results, 49 published papers between 2016 and 2023 were included. Most studies examined the connection between wearable sensor data and stress (n=15, 31%) or depression (n=14, 29%). In total, 71% (n=35) of the studies had less than 100 participants, and 47% (n=23) had less than 14 days of data recording. More than half of the studies (n=27, 55%) used step count as movement measurement, and 44% (n=21) used raw accelerometer values. The quality of the studies was assessed, scoring between 0 and 18 points in 9 categories (maximum 2 points per category). On average, studies were rated 6.47 (SD 3.1) points. CONCLUSIONS: The use of wearable technology for the detection, prediction, or classification of mental health states and traits is promising and offers a variety of applications across different settings and target groups. However, based on the current state of literature, the application of artificial intelligence cannot realize its full potential mostly due to a lack of methodological shortcomings and data availability. Future research endeavors may focus on the following suggestions to improve the quality of new applications in this context: first, by using raw data instead of already preprocessed data. Second, by using only relevant data based on empirical evidence. In particular, crafting optimal feature sets rather than using many individual detached features and consultation with in-field professionals. Third, by validating and replicating the existing approaches (ie, applying the model to unseen data). Fourth, depending on the research aim (ie, generalization vs personalization) maximizing the sample size or the duration over which data are collected.
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 | 0.010 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".