Identifying daily-living features related to loneliness: A causal machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness is a distressing feeling that influences well-being. Immigrants' experience of acculturation to a new dominant culture places them at risk for maladaptive behaviors and daily rhythms leading to loneliness. Identifying daily-living features that causally influence loneliness is essential for developing effective preventive mental health screening. OBJECTIVE: To identify the important daily living-features related to loneliness for the development of robust screening solutions using causal machine learning for health providers working with first-generation immigrants. METHODS: We monitored 39 immigrants in Finland for 28 days using mobile devices and wearables under free-living conditions. Data included ecological momentary assessments of loneliness, social interactions, physical activity, sleep, and cardiac features. We estimated the average treatment effect (ATE) of each daily-living feature (treatment variable) on loneliness scores (outcome) and validated the robustness of causal estimates using three refutation techniques. RESULTS: Our results reveal the ATE of various daily-living features on loneliness. Features such as longer outgoing call durations (ATE = 0.197, p < 0.001), higher LF/HF ratio (ATE = 0.129, p < 0.0001), higher respiratory rate (ATE = 0.144, p < 0.001), and increased inactivity (ATE = 0.130, p < 0.001) causally increased loneliness. Conversely, certain features exhibit negative ATEs, such as higher activity calories (ATE = -0.174, p < 0.001), sleep RMSSD (ATE = -0.128, p < 0.001), longer home duration (ATE = -0.107, p < 0.001), and more sleep time (ATE = -0.103, p < 0.001) mitigated loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Daily-living features, including social interactions, activity, sleep, and cardiac features, causally influence loneliness. Our findings provide a basis for loneliness screening targeting immigrant populations. Future work should refine the measurement and incorporate contextual information to establish more reliable causal links in real life.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".