Cited by 34Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Research TopicsEmotion and Mood Recognition

A study of novel exploratory tools, digital technologies, and central nervous system biomarkers to characterize unipolar depression

Open access
Sverdlov, Oleksandr, Curcic, Jelena, Hannesdottir, Kristin, Gou, Liangke, De Luca, Valeria, Ambrosetti, Francesco, Zhang, Bingsong, Praestgaard, Jens +21 more·2021·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Digital technologies have the potential to provide objective and precise tools to detect depression-related symptoms. Deployment of digital technologies in clinical research can enable collection of large volumes of clinically relevant data that may not be captured using conventional psychometric questionnaires and patient-reported outcomes. Rigorous methodology studies to develop novel digital endpoints in depression are warranted. Objective: We conducted an exploratory, cross-sectional study to evaluate several digital technologies in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD) and persistent depressive disorder (PDD), and healthy controls. The study aimed at assessing utility and accuracy of the digital technologies as potential diagnostic tools for unipolar depression, as well as correlating digital biomarkers to clinically validated psychometric questionnaires in depression. Methods: A cross-sectional, non-interventional study of 20 participants with unipolar depression (MDD and PDD/dysthymia) and 20 healthy controls was conducted at the Centre for Human Drug Research (CHDR), the Netherlands. Eligible participants attended three in-clinic visits (days 1, 7, and 14), at which they underwent a series of assessments, including conventional clinical psychometric questionnaires and digital technologies. Between the visits, there was at-home collection of data through mobile applications. In all, seven digital technologies were evaluated in this study. Three technologies were administered via mobile applications: an interactive tool for the self-assessment of mood, and a cognitive test; a passive behavioral monitor to assess social interactions and global mobility; and a platform to perform voice recordings and obtain vocal biomarkers. Four technologies were evaluated in the clinic: a neuropsychological test battery; an eye motor tracking system; a standard high-density electroencephalogram (EEG)-based technology to analyze the brain network activity during cognitive testing; and a task quantifying bias in emotion perception. Results: Our data analysis was organized by technology – to better understand individual features of various technologies. In many cases, we obtained simple, parsimonious models that have reasonably high diagnostic accuracy and potential to predict standard clinical outcome in depression. Conclusion: This study generated many useful insights for future methodology studies of digital technologies and proof-of-concept clinical trials in depression and possibly other indications.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.640741

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Sverdlov et al. found that selected digital biomarker features were able to predict individual MADRS total scores and be used as classifiers.

    “Selected digital biomarker features (PHQ2 of Cambridge cognition; behavioral tracker features of BeHapp; neurophysiological features of Neurocart; EEG—resting state features of ElMindA Ltd. and EEG—BNA features of ElMindA Ltd.) were able to predict individual MADRS total scores, and use these models as classifiers”
  • Common efficacy scales such as HAM-D and MADRS are subjective and prone to bias.

    “Indeed, in Sverdlov et al. (30), the authors points out that common efficacy scales like HAM-D and MADRS are subjective and prone to bias.”
  • Digital biomarkers have a potential role in predicting individual depression severity, once confirmed and replicated in larger population studies.

    “digital biomarkers potential role in predicting individual depression severity may be a groundbreaking advancement, once confirmed and replicated in larger populations studies, providing clinicians with even more personalized assessment instruments (29, 30).”
  • Remote measurement technologies can allow tracking of current depression status and identification of behavioral markers related to depression in a continuous and effortless manner for long-term passive monitoring.

    “Remote measurement technologies can allow tracking of current depression status and identification of behavioral markers related to depression in a continuous and effortless manner for long-term passive monitoring.”

    From Digital health technologies and major depressive disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [135]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sverdlov, O., Curcic, J., Hannesdottir, K., Gou, L., De Luca, V., Ambrosetti, F., Zhang, B., Praestgaard, J., Vallejo, V., Dolman, A., Gomez-Mancilla, B., Biliouris, K., Deurinck, M., Cormack, F., Anderson, J. J., Bott, N. T., Peremen, Z., Issachar, G., Laufer, O., Joachim, D., Jagesar, R. R., Jongs, N., Kas, M. J., Zhuparris, A., Zuiker, R., Recourt, K., Zuilhof, Z., Cha, J.-H., & Jacobs, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (CH)
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Cambridge Cognition (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Neurotrack Technologies (United States) (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • ElMindA Ltd. (Israel) (IL)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Centre for Human Drug Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Sverdlov, Oleksandr
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2021-05-06
Volume
12
Pages
640741-640741
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3158697864
Cited by
34
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
major depressive disorder, dysthymia, digital biomarkers, digital endpoints, mobile application, cognitive assessment, social interaction monitoring, vocal biomarkers, eye tracking, EEG, brain network activity, depression diagnosis, digital health

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