MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410756192 · doi:10.2196/72669

Development of a Recommendation Engine to University Student Mental Health Support Aligned With Stepped Care: Longitudinal Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410756192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pedro Elkind Velmovitsky, Charles Keown‐Stoneman, Kaylen J. Pfisterer, Julia Hews‐Girard, Joseph Saliba, Shumit Saha, Scott B. Patten, Nathan King, Anne Duffy, Quỳnh Phạm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of WaterlooSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMental healthHealth careMental health carePsychologyMedical educationWorld Wide WebNursingInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health challenges are prevalent among Canadian higher education students, with significant rates of depression and anxiety often going untreated due to reduced early detection, stigmatizing beliefs, and practical barriers. The U-Flourish longitudinal electronic survey study launched in 2018 engages new cohorts of incoming undergraduate students and repeatedly collects data about mental health and well-being and access to support. OBJECTIVE: U-Flourish survey data provide a unique opportunity to train evidence-based prediction risk models and a personalized recommendation engine to signpost students to indicated mental health support based on their own data. METHODS: Two approaches were integrated in developing the risk prediction models and recommendation engine: (1) clinically defined rules by experts in the field to detect current and predict the risk of future anxiety and depression and to signpost students to appropriate care using a stepped care approach and based on clinical factors (ie, self-harm and suicidal thoughts, symptom levels, and lifetime history); and (2) machine learning models, trained with additional data including family history, early adversity, and stress indicators, to predict future risks of clinically significant depression (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire) and anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire). Models were created using the XGBoost algorithm and a 70:30 ratio for training and testing with 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: In total, 27.5% of students at entry to university from 2018 to 2023 were identified as having potentially clinically significant levels of anxiety and depression and signposted to university mental health services based on the clinically defined rules. Optimizing thresholds to reduce false negatives, the machine learning models predicted anxiety and depression over the year in students screening negative at baseline with accuracy comparable with reported clinical screening as evidenced by sensitivity ≥90% for all models trained. Models had high negative predictive value (≥89%), balanced against low specificity. Individuals identified at risk for anxiety or depression were signposted primarily to self-guided resources supporting proactive prevention. Model findings also demonstrated that abbreviated screens (2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2] and 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-2]), with potential to reduce respondent burden and improve adherence, can be used without compromising sensitivity. Indeed, PHQ-2 displayed a 90% sensitivity and GAD-2 displayed a 92% sensitivity. Shapley additive explanations analyses revealed other predictive factors including childhood trauma, family history of mental illness, and functional impairment associated with reported depression and anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The risk prediction models and recommendation engine's dual approach rationalize support allocation and promote targeted early intervention and prevention, potentially improving capacity to address the increasing burden on university mental health services. Future directions include further refinement based on a larger harmonized and enriched dataset, independent validation, and implementation studies to estimate the complex factors that influence uptake, reach to services, and acceptability across more diverse student users.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207