Self-assessment and rest-activity rhythm monitoring for effective bipolar disorder management: a longitudinal actigraphy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent course and disruption of circadian rhythms are among the core features of bipolar disorder (BD). Thus, ongoing symptom monitoring is an essential part of good clinical management. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study to validate the English version of the ASERT (Aktibipo questionnaire), a tool for self-assessment of mood symptoms. We also analyzed the relationship of self-assessed symptoms with clinician ratings and actigraphy measures, and investigated the possibility of predicting depressive episodes using subjective and digital measures. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study of twenty individuals with BD, followed for up to 11 months. The participants completed weekly mood self-assessments (ASERT) using a smartphone app and wore wrist actigraphs. During monthly appointments, the severity of their mood symptoms was rated by clinicians, and the participants completed questionnaires addressing overall functioning (FAST), and biological rhythms (BRIAN). RESULTS: The study confirmed the validity and reliability of the ASERT as a measure of subjective mood. Additionally, we found significant associations between ASERT responses, clinical scales, and actigraphy data (ASERT_dep vs. MADRS β = 1.42, p < 0.001, ASERT_man vs. YMRS β = 0.38, p < 0.001, mixed-effect model). In our analysis, a combination of self-assessment and actigraphy data detected depression relapse with 67% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 81% balanced accuracy, and AUC of 0.80. Furthermore, we observed a strong correlation between the actigraphy-derived interdaily stability and BRIAN scores (β=-3.86, p = 0.005) overall functioning, emphasizing the significance of circadian rhythm disruptions in BD. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the potential of digital tools, such as digitally administered self-assessments and actigraphy, to enhance the management of BD by providing valuable insights into mood states and detecting relapse. Further research is needed to refine and optimize these tools for widespread clinical application, such as informing personalized treatment plans.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".