MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417042458 · doi:10.2196/84024

Development and Validation of a Cross-Device Platform for Anhedonia Trend Visualization by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment and Moving Averages (Part I): Protocol for a Methodological Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4417042458 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yen‐Chung Ho, Caiyun Fang, Yung‐Chieh Ching, Hsiu‐Ju Chang, Jiun‐Yi Wang, Charles C.N. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)VisualizationAnhedoniaEcological validityData visualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anhedonia is a core symptom of depressive disorders. Although group-level cutoff points for the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) are established, real-time, individual-level monitoring remains limited. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) enables high-frequency sampling, and simple moving averages (SMA; 7/14/30 days) offer an interpretable way to smooth daily signals and surface early-warning trends. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a cross-device platform that collects EMA-based SHAPS responses and visualizes SMA trends for individual anhedonia monitoring. This part I protocol focuses on platform design, feasibility, usability, data quality, and initial analytical validity to inform subsequent evaluation. METHODS: We will conduct a single-arm methodological pilot in approximately 24 adults, recruited from an outpatient psychiatry clinic (clinical cohort) and a university setting (nonclinical cohort). After baseline assessment, participants will complete 30 days of daily EMA-SHAPS. Primary outcomes are feasibility (adherence, missingness patterns, timing fidelity) and usability/face validity (eg, System Usability Scale, qualitative feedback). We will also describe expert content validity ratings for key visual elements and exploratory analytic checks of within-person variability and the descriptive behavior of 7/14/30-day moving averages; these analyses are not powered for confirmatory hypothesis testing. RESULTS: This protocol specifies the design-validate sequence, recruitment procedures, and predefined adherence and missing-data rules for computing moving averages. Recruitment for the year-1 feasibility pilot is scheduled to begin in March 2026 following institutional review board approval (approval 114006; approval date: June 10, 2025), with feasibility metrics, usability indices, and parameter estimates used to refine alert logic and power calculations for a planned part II evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Combining EMA-SHAPS with SMA-based trend visualizations may provide an interpretable way to summarize daily anhedonia signals and generate candidate early-warning indicators. This methodological pilot will deliver feasibility, usability, and preliminary analytic parameters needed to support a subsequent controlled evaluation of the platform's clinical utility. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/84024.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.009

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 head0.801
GPT teacher head0.736
Teacher spread0.065 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→