Cited by 160Mental Health Research TopicsDigital Mental Health InterventionsSleep and related disorders

Digital biomarkers of mood disorders and symptom change

Open access
Jacobson, Nicholas C., Weingarden, Hilary, Wilhelm, Sabine·2019·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Abstract Current approaches to psychiatric assessment are resource-intensive, requiring time-consuming evaluation by a trained clinician. Development of digital biomarkers holds promise for enabling scalable, time-sensitive, and cost-effective assessment of both psychiatric diagnosis and symptom change. The present study aimed to identify robust digital biomarkers of diagnostic status and changes in symptom severity over ~2 weeks, through re-analysis of public-use actigraphy data collected in patients with major depressive or bipolar disorder and healthy controls. Results suggest that participants’ diagnostic group status (i.e., mood disorder, control) can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy (predicted correctly 89% of the time, kappa = 0.773), using features extracted from actigraphy data alone. Results also suggest that actigraphy data can be used to predict symptom change across ~2 weeks ( r = 0.782, p = 1.04e-05). Through inclusion of digital biomarkers in our statistical model, which are generalizable to new samples, the results may be replicated by other research groups in order to validate and extend this work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-019-0078-0

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 160

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]Nielsen, D. Why Does XGBoost Win “Every” Machine Learning Competition? Master of Science thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Techology (2016).
  2. [11]Schapire, R. E. in Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, Dean, T. (ed.). Vol. 2, 1401–1406 (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Stockholm, Sweden, 1999).

Authors
Jacobson, N. C., Weingarden, H., & Wilhelm, S.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Jacobson, Nicholas C.
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2019-02-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
3-3
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2915095068
Cited by
160
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 4
FWCI
16.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Massachusetts General Hospital
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
digital biomarkers, mood disorders, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, actigraphy, sleep-wake patterns, psychiatric diagnosis, wearable sensor data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review