Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

An Explainable Anomaly Detection Framework for Monitoring Depression and Anxiety Using Consumer Wearable Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Passive wearable data can flag clinically significant depression and anxiety worsening, with adjusted F1 = 0.80 and resting heart rate dominant in 71.4% of episodes.

desk verdict Large cohort and clearly described framework, but the headline F1 of 0.80 is not yet interpretable because the detection threshold is chosen on the validation set and no null/baseline comparison is reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03039 v1 pith:VRNCXVQQ submitted 2025-05-05 cs.CV stat.AP

Yuezhou Zhang , Amos A. Folarin , Callum Stewart , Heet Sankesara , Yatharth Ranjan , Pauline Conde , Akash Roy Choudhury , Shaoxiong Sun
show 2 more authors
Zulqarnain Rashid Richard J.B. Dobson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVstat.AP
keywords anomalydetectionwearabledevicesdepressionandanxietyLSTMautoencoderSHAPexplainabilityrestingheartratedigitalmentalhealthmonitoringpassivesensing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that everyday wearable data can catch the moment when depression or anxiety symptoms begin to worsen, without waiting for a questionnaire or a clinic visit. The authors train an LSTM autoencoder exclusively on each participant's stable, low-symptom periods, then flag any week-long stretch whose reconstructed sleep, step count, or resting heart rate deviates strongly from that normal pattern. Across 393 symptom-worsening episodes in 341 participants, the model detects episodes with 88% recall and 73% precision (adjusted F1 = 0.80), and it performs better when both depression and anxiety worsen together or when symptom increases are more severe. Resting heart rate is the leading explanatory feature in 71.4% of detections, with both unusually high and unusually low values raising the anomaly score. This points to passive wearables serving as a scalable early-warning layer for mental health monitoring.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an LSTM autoencoder: an encoder-decoder network that compresses a 7-day sliding window of three per-participant z-scored daily features (sleep duration, total steps, resting heart rate) into a latent vector and reconstructs it. Because the model is trained only on normal-period data, high reconstruction error marks deviation from the person's own healthy pattern; the detection threshold is the 95th percentile of validation-set reconstruction error, and evaluation uses an event-based adjusted F-score in which an episode counts as detected if at least one flagged 7-day window falls inside it. SHAP values applied to the reconstruction error supply explanations, ranking resting heart rate first in 71.4% of episodes and enabling time-dynamic tracing of individual alarms.

What would settle it

Re-run the same model on the same data with the anomalous window shifted or widened, for example to the 14 days before and 21 days after the assessment; if the adjusted recall of 0.88 changes materially or the set of undetected episodes shifts, the detection is tied to the fixed window rather than to the underlying symptom change. A stronger test would use an independent cohort with daily symptom ratings and check that flagged anomalies align with actual symptom-onset dates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that clinically meaningful worsening of depression and anxiety leaves a recoverable trace in daily behavior and physiology, and that an unsupervised reconstruction model can find that trace. Trained on 2,023 participants' normal periods (at least 8 consecutive weeks with PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores both below 5, excluding COVID-19 windows), the LSTM autoencoder learns normal daily patterns of sleep duration, step count, and resting heart rate. An anomalous episode is defined as a 5-point or larger increase in PHQ-8 or GAD-7 over the participant's own normal-period average, with a fixed anomalous window of 21 days before to 14 days after the flagged assessment. Using the 95th percentile of validation reconstruction error as the threshold, the model detects 393 episodes with adjusted F1 = 0.80 (precision 0.73, recall 0.88), with higher performance for episodes involving both depression and anxiety (F1 = 0.84) and for 10-point or larger increases (F1 around 0.85). SHAP attribution identifies resting heart rate as the most influential feature overall, with a U-shaped relationship, followed by step count and sleep duration, which show negative associations.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that every symptom-related change in sleep, steps, or resting heart rate lands inside the fixed 35-day window around the flagged questionnaire (21 days before to 14 days after); if behavioral changes happen earlier or later, the model cannot see them, and the reported detection rate depends on this empirically chosen definition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A monitor running this framework could work between fortnightly self-report assessments, raising an early alarm when a clinically significant worsening may already be underway.
  • The threshold and window choices are directly reusable, and the reported performance by episode type gives concrete expectations for severe and comorbid cases.
  • Resting heart rate should be treated as a priority candidate digital biomarker, with both unusually high and unusually low values considered clinically relevant.
  • Individual-level explanations can reveal whether an alarm was driven by sleep, activity, or heart rate, and whether one signal preceded another.
  • Because the model trains only on healthy-baseline data, the approach avoids reliance on noisy worsening labels and could transfer to other conditions with definable stable periods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the fixed 35-day anomalous window means the reported 88% recall applies only to changes that fall inside that window; a learnable or individually calibrated window is the natural next test and could change the recall estimate.
  • Editorial extension: per-participant z-score normalization removes baseline differences, so the framework as presented cannot distinguish a person with low baseline activity from one with high baseline activity; modelling baseline types explicitly could sharpen precision.
  • Editorial extension: the SHAP rank pattern suggests a testable clinical hypothesis that sleep disturbance is an earlier or more specific marker for anxiety-only episodes, while resting heart rate is a general arousal marker; this could be checked with prospective daily symptom diaries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised anomaly detection framework for identifying clinically meaningful worsening of depression and anxiety from consumer wearable data (sleep duration, step count, resting heart rate). A LSTM autoencoder is trained exclusively on 'normal' periods (defined by eight consecutive weeks of low PHQ-8/GAD-7 scores and no COVID-19 infection) and detects anomalies when the reconstruction error of a 7-day sliding window exceeds a percentile threshold of the validation error distribution. Episodes are defined as ≥5-point increases in PHQ-8 or GAD-7 relative to the participant's normal baseline, and an episode is considered detected if at least one 7-day window within the 35-day anomalous period is flagged. The authors report an adjusted F1 of 0.80 (precision 0.73, recall 0.88) over 393 episodes, with SHAP-based explanations identifying resting heart rate as the most influential feature in 71.4% of detected anomalies. The paper claims the framework enables personalized, scalable, and proactive mental health monitoring.

Significance. If the reported performance is valid, this work would make a meaningful contribution: it uses a large real-world dataset (2,023 participants), adopts an unsupervised training strategy that avoids noisy labels, and provides interpretability through SHAP, which is valuable for clinical translation. The study also honestly acknowledges several limitations, including the empirical selection of detection thresholds. However, the central performance claim is currently undermined by a load-bearing methodological issue: the detection threshold was selected to maximize the F1 on the very episodes used for evaluation, and no null-model or false-positive control is provided for the lenient event-based metric. These issues must be addressed before the headline numbers can be interpreted. The strengths of the study design and the availability of code on request are noted, but the evaluation methodology needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Anomaly Detection Model'; Results, Figure 2b] The detection threshold is not fixed a priori but is selected as the percentile (90th–100th) of validation reconstruction error that yields the highest adjusted F1 on the 393 labeled anomalous episodes, with the 95th percentile reported as 'highest performance.' This constitutes direct tuning of the decision boundary on the evaluation episodes: the reported F1 of 0.80 is therefore an in-sample, optimistically biased estimate. The authors should either select the threshold on a held-out labeled development set, or justify a fixed threshold (e.g., based on a target false-positive rate on normal validation data) and report performance with that threshold applied to a separate test set. Confidence intervals should also be provided for the reported metrics.
  2. [Methods, 'Evaluation Metrics'; Results, Figure 2b and 2c] The adjusted F-score treats an episode as detected if at least one of the 29 overlapping 7-day windows in the 35-day anomalous period exceeds the threshold. At the 95th-percentile threshold, a trivial detector that flags 5% of normal windows by construction would flag at least one window in about 77% of random 35-day periods (if windows were independent), which is close to the reported recall of 0.88. The paper does not report the false-positive rate on non-anomalous (control) periods, nor does it compare against a null detector or a random baseline. Without such controls, the reported recall and F1 do not demonstrate that the detector is specific to symptom-worsening episodes. The authors should report specificity on matched normal periods, provide a null-model comparison, and consider a more stringent episode-level criterion (e.g., requiring a minimum number of flagged windows or temporal contiguity).
  3. [Methods, 'Study Samples and Settings'; Results, 'Performance metrics'] The model is trained on normal-period data from all 2,023 participants, including the 341 participants whose anomalous episodes are used for evaluation. Although the unsupervised training does not use episode labels, per-participant z-score normalization and the threshold selection described above are performed on the same participants, which may inflate apparent performance relative to a deployment scenario. A participant-wise or temporal split (e.g., training on a random subset of participants and evaluating on held-out participants) is needed to estimate generalizability to new individuals.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states '71.4 percentage,' which should be '71.4%.'
  2. [Results, Figure 2c] The caption refers to 'Distribution of adjusted F1-scores across all 393 anomalous episodes' and states that 54 episodes had an F1 of 0. This is confusing because F1 is normally an aggregate metric rather than an episode-level value; the authors should clarify how an episode-level F1 is computed or rephrase to describe detection status per episode.
  3. [Table 1] The rows '5-9-point increase in PHQ-8' (214) and '≥10-point increase in PHQ-8' (34) sum to 248, which equals the number of episodes with a PHQ-8 increase (PHQ-only 148 + BOTH 100). The authors should state explicitly that these counts refer to episodes with a PHQ-8 increase of the given magnitude, not to distinct episodes, to avoid apparent inconsistency with the total of 393.
  4. [Discussion, 'Limitations'] The discussion appropriately acknowledges that 'some definitions for anomaly detection (such as the magnitude of change, anomaly duration, and detection thresholds) were determined empirically and require further investigation.' This is an honest statement, but it further underscores that the reported performance should be treated as exploratory until the threshold-selection procedure is corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline F1 is the best threshold choice on the same episodes, so the reported detection performance is partly an in-sample fit rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, 'Anomaly Detection Model'; Results, first paragraph]
    "we explored various percentile thresholds of the reconstruction error distribution on the validation set, specifically the 90th to 100th percentiles. ... The LSTM-AE model, trained on normal period data from 2,023 participants, achieved its highest performance with an adjusted F-score of 0.7953, a precision of 0.7277, and a recall of 0.8768 when using the 95th percentile of validation loss as the detection threshold across all anomaly episodes."

    The 95th-percentile threshold is not a pre-registered or held-out parameter: the paper reports the 'highest performance' among the 90th-100th percentile thresholds, with that F1 computed on the 393 anomalous episodes. Hence the threshold was selected by optimizing the same metric that is then reported as the model's detection ability, making the headline recall/precision an in-sample maximum over thresholds rather than a prediction.

  2. other [Methods, 'Evaluation Metrics']
    "an anomalous episode is considered successfully detected if the model flags at least one input segment (7-day window) as anomalous within that episode."

    A 35-day anomalous period contains up to 29 overlapping 7-day windows (21 days before plus 14 days after the assessment, with a 1-day sliding step). Under the chosen 95th-percentile threshold, 5% of normal windows are anomalous by construction; assuming independence, a trivial detector would flag at least one window in about 1 - 0.95^29 = 77% of random normal periods, already close to the reported recall of 0.8768. Without a sham-episode control or null-model comparison, the lenient episode-level definition nearly guarantees a detection, so the reported recall does not establish that detected anomalies are specific to symptom-worsening episodes rather than ordinary variation.

full rationale

The LSTM-autoencoder itself is trained without outcome labels, and the paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem; the core modeling pipeline is not definitionally circular. The circularity lies in the performance claim. The detection threshold is a percentile of reconstruction error on normal validation data, but the choice among the 90th-100th percentiles is reported as the one giving the 'highest performance' on the 393 target episodes, so the headline adjusted F1 is a fitted maximum rather than a held-out estimate. This is aggravated by the event-level evaluation rule, which counts an episode as detected if any of roughly 29 overlapping windows crosses threshold, so the 5% false-positive rate implied by the 95th-percentile threshold already yields a high chance-level detection rate. The paper acknowledges that 'detection thresholds were determined empirically,' but does not correct the resulting optimistic bias with a validation split for threshold selection, a null model, or confidence intervals. The secondary modeling choices (5-point increase, 35-day window) are limitations rather than circular steps. Overall, the central quantitative claim is partially circular because the reported prediction performance is optimized on the same episodes used to evaluate it.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities or physical constructs. Its central claims rest on several free parameters and domain assumptions: the healthy-baseline definition, the symptom-worsening threshold, the 35-day anomaly window, and the test-selected detection threshold. These choices are reasonable but empirically determined, and the test-set threshold selection is the most serious burden on the reported performance.

free parameters (4)
  • Anomaly detection threshold percentile = 95th percentile of validation reconstruction error
    Selected because it produced the highest adjusted F1 on the labeled test episodes, i.e., tuned on the target data.
  • Anomalous period window = 21 days before to 14 days after an anomalous assessment (35 days total)
    Empirically set based on prior studies and acknowledged in the limitations as requiring further investigation.
  • Normal period definition = At least 8 consecutive weeks with PHQ-8 and GAD-7 both below 5
    Hand-chosen operational definition of a healthy baseline; changing this would change the training data and results.
  • Symptom worsening threshold = Increase of >=5 points in PHQ-8 or GAD-7 relative to the normal-period average
    Based on clinical evidence, but still a hand-selected threshold that defines the ground truth episodes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores are valid measures of depression and anxiety severity.
    All anomalous episodes are defined entirely from self-report questionnaire scores, with no clinical interview or objective verification.
  • domain assumption Symptom worsening manifests as detectable deviations in sleep duration, step count, and resting heart rate within the defined anomalous period.
    The entire framework depends on these three wearable features carrying a signal for mental health changes; prior literature supports associations but does not guarantee detectability in this cohort.
  • ad hoc to paper The 35-day anomalous period window contains the relevant behavioral and physiological changes.
    The window was set empirically by the authors and acknowledged as such in the limitations; if changes fall outside this window, detection is misaligned even if the model is accurate.
  • domain assumption The LSTM autoencoder reconstruction error on normal-period data is an adequate anomaly score.
    Standard autoencoder assumption; the paper does not compare this scoring method against simpler alternatives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Explainable Anomaly Detection Framework for Monitoring Depression and Anxiety Using Consumer Wearable Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRNCXVQQ

@misc{pith2026250503039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Explainable Anomaly Detection Framework for Monitoring Depression and Anxiety Using Consumer Wearable Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRNCXVQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03039}
}
read the original abstract

Continuous monitoring of behavior and physiology via wearable devices offers a novel, objective method for the early detection of worsening depression and anxiety. In this study, we present an explainable anomaly detection framework that identifies clinically meaningful increases in symptom severity using consumer-grade wearable data. Leveraging data from 2,023 participants with defined healthy baselines, our LSTM autoencoder model learned normal health patterns of sleep duration, step count, and resting heart rate. Anomalies were flagged when self-reported depression or anxiety scores increased by >=5 points (a threshold considered clinically significant). The model achieved an adjusted F1-score of 0.80 (precision = 0.73, recall = 0.88) in detecting 393 symptom-worsening episodes across 341 participants, with higher performance observed for episodes involving concurrent depression and anxiety escalation (F1 = 0.84) and for more pronounced symptom changes (>=10-point increases, F1 = 0.85). Model interpretability was supported by SHAP-based analysis, which identified resting heart rate as the most influential feature in 71.4 percentage of detected anomalies, followed by physical activity and sleep. Together, our findings highlight the potential of explainable anomaly detection to enable personalized, scalable, and proactive mental health monitoring in real-world settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the study design and the explainable anomaly detection framework. (a) Schematic of the Covid Collab mHealth study data collection. (b) Definition of anomalous episodes based on a ≥5-point increase in PHQ-8 or GAD-7 from the participant’s normal baseline. (c) LSTM autoencoder model training pipeline using only normal-period data. (d) An anomaly is detected when a new sequence’s reconstruction error exceed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behavioral and physiological changes during anomalous episodes and model performance. (a) Time series of wearable-derived daily features—sleep duration (top), total steps (middle), and resting heart rate (bottom)—centered around the anomalous assessment (dashed pink line). (b) Performance metrics of the anomaly detection model across different anomaly types. (c) Distribution of adjusted F1-scores across all 393 anom… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SHAP feature importance and contribution rankings across anomaly episodes. (a, b) Overall feature importance derived from SHAP values, indicating that resting heart rate is the strongest contributor to anomaly detection, followed by step count and then sleep duration. (c, d, e) SHAP dependence plots for resting heart rate, step count and sleep duration, respectively, illustrating their relationships with reconstruct… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of detected anomalies with time-dynamic SHAP explanations. (a) A depression-related anomaly characterized by clear changes across all three features. (b) Another depression-related anomaly primarily driven by a sharp decline in step count and a moderate increa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Lancet Psychiatry, 2022

    Collaborators, G.M.D., Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2022. 9(2): p. 137-150

    1990

  2. [2]

    Journal of psychiatric research,

    Liu, Q., et al., Changes in the global burden of depression from 1990 to 2017: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease study. Journal of psychiatric research,

    1990

  3. [3]

    The Lancet, 2021

    Santomauro, D.F., et al., Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 2021. 398(10312): p. 1700-1712

    2020

  4. [4]

    Translational psychiatry, 2019

    Kraus, C., et al., Prognosis and improved outcomes in major depression: a review. Translational psychiatry, 2019. 9(1): p. 127

    2019

  5. [5]

    Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2008

    Gloster, A.T., et al., Accuracy of retrospective memory and covariation estimation in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2008. 46(5): p. 642-655

    2008

  6. [6]

    Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2016: p

    Althubaiti, A., Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2016: p. 211-217

    2016

  7. [7]

    Ben-Zeev, D. and M.A. Young, Accuracy of hospitalized depressed patients' and healthy controls' retrospective symptom reports: an experience sampling study. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 2010. 198(4): p. 280-285

    2010

  8. [8]

    JMIR mental health, 2015

    Torous, J., et al., Utilizing a personal smartphone custom app to assess the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder. JMIR mental health, 2015. 2(1): p. e3889

    2015

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    BMC public health, 2023

    Yokoyama, S., et al., Day-to-day regularity and diurnal switching of physical activity reduce depression-related behaviors: a time-series analysis of wearable device data. BMC public health, 2023. 23(1): p. 34

    2023

  2. [10]

    The lancet, 2012

    Murray, C.J., et al., Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The lancet, 2012. 380(9859): p. 2197-2223

    1990

  3. [11]

    Oladeji, B.D. and O. Gureje, Brain drain: a challenge to global mental health. BJPsych international, 2016. 13(3): p. 61-63

    2016

  4. [12]

    Psychiatric rehabilitation journal,

    Ben-Zeev, D., et al., Next-generation psychiatric assessment: Using smartphone sensors to monitor behavior and mental health. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal,

  5. [13]

    Kim, and R

    Kim, J., D.-g. Kim, and R. Kamphaus, Early detection of mental health through universal screening at schools. Georgia Educational Researcher, 2022. 19(1): p. 62

    2022

  6. [14]

    Psychological medicine, 2018

    Evans-Lacko, S., et al., Socio-economic variations in the mental health treatment gap for people with anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders: results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. Psychological medicine, 2018. 48(9): p. 1560- 1571

    2018

  7. [15]

    JMIR mental health, 2020

    Torous, J., et al., Digital mental health and COVID-19: using technology today to accelerate the curve on access and quality tomorrow. JMIR mental health, 2020. 7(3): p. e18848

    2020

  8. [16]

    Zhang, and S.M

    Mohr, D.C., M. Zhang, and S.M. Schueller, Personal sensing: understanding mental health using ubiquitous sensors and machine learning. Annual review of clinical psychology, 2017. 13(1): p. 23-47

    2017

  9. [17]

    Shilton, and M

    Mohr, D.C., K. Shilton, and M. Hotopf, Digital phenotyping, behavioral sensing, or personal sensing: names and transparency in the digital age. NPJ digital medicine,

  10. [18]

    JMIR mental health, 2016

    Torous, J., et al., New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research. JMIR mental health, 2016. 3(2): p. e5165

    2016

  11. [19]

    NPJ digital medicine, 2022

    De Angel, V., et al., Digital health tools for the passive monitoring of depression: a systematic review of methods. NPJ digital medicine, 2022. 5(1): p. 3

    2022

  12. [20]

    Currey, D. and J. Torous, Digital phenotyping correlations in larger mental health samples: analysis and replication. BJPsych Open, 2022. 8(4): p. e106

    2022

  13. [21]

    Frontiers in psychiatry, 2021

    Moshe, I., et al., Predicting symptoms of depression and anxiety using smartphone and wearable data. Frontiers in psychiatry, 2021. 12: p. 625247

    2021

  14. [22]

    JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018

    Rohani, D.A., et al., Correlations between objective behavioral features collected from mobile and wearable devices and depressive mood symptoms in patients with affective disorders: systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. 6(8): p. e9691

    2018

  15. [23]

    NPJ digital medicine, 2021

    Fang, Y ., et al., Day-to-day variability in sleep parameters and depression risk: a prospective cohort study of training physicians. NPJ digital medicine, 2021. 4(1): p. 28

    2021

  16. [24]

    JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021

    Zhang, Y ., et al., Relationship between major depression symptom severity and sleep collected using a wristband wearable device: multicenter longitudinal observational study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. 9(4): p. e24604

    2021

  17. [25]

    Depression and anxiety, 2019

    Difrancesco, S., et al., Sleep, circadian rhythm, and physical activity patterns in depressive and anxiety disorders: A 2-week ambulatory assessment study. Depression and anxiety, 2019. 36(10): p. 975-986

    2019

  18. [26]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2018

    Lu, J., et al., Joint modeling of heterogeneous sensing data for depression assessment via multi-task learning. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2018. 2(1): p. 1-21

    2018

  19. [27]

    JMIR mental health, 2022

    Zhang, Y ., et al., Longitudinal relationships between depressive symptom severity and phone-measured mobility: dynamic structural equation modeling study. JMIR mental health, 2022. 9(3): p. e34898

    2022

  20. [28]

    JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022

    Laiou, P ., et al., The association between home stay and symptom severity in major depressive disorder: preliminary findings from a multicenter observational study using geolocation data from smartphones. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. 10(1): p. e28095

    2022

  21. [29]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2024

    Zhang, Y ., et al., Longitudinal Assessment of Seasonal Impacts and Depression Associations on Circadian Rhythm Using Multimodal Wearable Sensing: Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2024. 26: p. e55302

    2024

  22. [30]

    Journal of psychiatric research, 2018

    Smagula, S.F., et al., Rest-activity rhythm profiles associated with manic-hypomanic and depressive symptoms. Journal of psychiatric research, 2018. 102: p. 238-244

    2018

  23. [31]

    Psychological medicine, 2023

    Siddi, S., et al., The usability of daytime and night-time heart rate dynamics as digital biomarkers of depression severity. Psychological medicine, 2023. 53(8): p. 3249- 3260

    2023

  24. [32]

    Schwerdtfeger, A. and P . Friedrich-Mai, Social interaction moderates the relationship between depressive mood and heart rate variability: evidence from an ambulatory monitoring study. Health Psychology, 2009. 28(4): p. 501

    2009

  25. [33]

    Journal of Affective Disorders, 2025

    Zhang, Y ., et al., Large-scale digital phenotyping: identifying depression and anxiety indicators in a general UK population with over 10,000 participants. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Medical Journal of Australia, 2012

    Tiller, J.W., Depression and anxiety. Medical Journal of Australia, 2012. 1(4)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Frontiers in psychiatry, 2014

    Chalmers, J.A., et al., Anxiety disorders are associated with reduced heart rate variability: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychiatry, 2014. 5: p. 80

    2014

  28. [36]

    npj Digital Medicine, 2023

    Langholm, C., et al., Classifying and clustering mood disorder patients using smartphone data from a feasibility study. npj Digital Medicine, 2023. 6(1): p. 238

    2023

  29. [37]

    Depression and anxiety, 2019

    Pratap, A., et al., The accuracy of passive phone sensors in predicting daily mood. Depression and anxiety, 2019. 36(1): p. 72-81

    2019

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2023

    Xu, X., et al., GLOBEM: cross-dataset generalization of longitudinal human behavior modeling. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2023. 6(4): p. 1-34

    2023

  31. [39]

    Journal of affective disorders, 2016

    Musliner, K.L., et al., Heterogeneity in long-term trajectories of depressive symptoms: Patterns, predictors and outcomes. Journal of affective disorders, 2016. 192: p. 199- 211

    2016

  32. [40]

    Fried, E.I. and R.M. Nesse, Depression is not a consistent syndrome: An investigation of unique symptom patterns in the STAR* D study. Journal of affective disorders,

  33. [41]

    Journal of affective disorders, 2009

    Kroenke, K., et al., The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. Journal of affective disorders, 2009. 114(1-3): p. 163-173

    2009

  34. [42]

    Banerjee, and V

    Chandola, V., A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar, Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 2009. 41(3): p. 1-58

    2009

  35. [43]

    Rule-based anomaly pattern detection for detecting disease outbreaks

    Wong, W.-K., et al. Rule-based anomaly pattern detection for detecting disease outbreaks. in AAAI/IAAI. 2002

    2002

  36. [44]

    SN Computer Science, 2021

    Ripan, R.C., et al., A data-driven heart disease prediction model through K-means clustering-based anomaly detection. SN Computer Science, 2021. 2(2): p. 112

    2021

  37. [45]

    Nature biomedical engineering, 2020

    Mishra, T., et al., Pre-symptomatic detection of COVID-19 from smartwatch data. Nature biomedical engineering, 2020. 4(12): p. 1208-1220

    2020

  38. [46]

    Nature medicine, 2022

    Alavi, A., et al., Real-time alerting system for COVID-19 and other stress events using wearable data. Nature medicine, 2022. 28(1): p. 175-184

    2022

  39. [47]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023

    Abir, F.F., et al., PCovNet+: A CNN-VAE anomaly detection framework with LSTM embeddings for smartwatch-based COVID-19 detection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023. 122: p. 106130

    2023

  40. [48]

    Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2024

    Cohen, A., et al., Digital phenotyping data and anomaly detection methods to assess changes in mood and anxiety symptoms across a transdiagnostic clinical sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Melcher, and J

    D’Mello, R., J. Melcher, and J. Torous, Similarity matrix-based anomaly detection for clinical intervention. Scientific Reports, 2022. 12(1): p. 9162

    2022

  42. [50]

    Scientific reports, 2023

    Vairavan, S., et al., Personalized relapse prediction in patients with major depressive disorder using digital biomarkers. Scientific reports, 2023. 13(1): p. 18596

    2023

  43. [51]

    JMIR research protocols, 2021

    Stewart, C., et al., Investigating the use of digital health technology to monitor COVID-19 and its effects: protocol for an observational study (COVID Collab Study). JMIR research protocols, 2021. 10(12): p. e32587

    2021

  44. [52]

    The Lancet Digital Health, 2024

    Stewart, C., et al., Physiological presentation and risk factors of long COVID in the UK using smartphones and wearable devices: a longitudinal, citizen science, case– control study. The Lancet Digital Health, 2024. 6(9): p. e640-e650

    2024

  45. [53]

    JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019

    Ranjan, Y ., et al., RADAR-base: open source mobile health platform for collecting, monitoring, and analyzing data using sensors, wearables, and mobile devices. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. 7(8): p. e11734

    2019

  46. [54]

    JMIR Mental Health, 2024

    Rashid, Z., et al., Digital Phenotyping of Mental and Physical Conditions: Remote Monitoring of Patients Through RADAR-Base Platform. JMIR Mental Health, 2024. 11: p. e51259

    2024

  47. [55]

    Archives of internal medicine, 2006

    Spitzer, R.L., et al., A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of internal medicine, 2006. 166(10): p. 1092-1097

    2006

  48. [56]

    Journal of medical Internet research, 2021

    Meyerhoff, J., et al., Evaluation of changes in depression, anxiety, and social anxiety using smartphone sensor features: longitudinal cohort study. Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. 23(9): p. e22844

    2021

  49. [57]

    Journal of medical Internet research, 2020

    Sun, S., et al., Using smartphones and wearable devices to monitor behavioral changes during COVID-19. Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. 22(9): p. e19992

    2020

  50. [58]

    Gilbody, and D

    McMillan, D., S. Gilbody, and D. Richards, Defining successful treatment outcome in depression using the PHQ-9: a comparison of methods. Journal of affective disorders,

  51. [59]

    British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2014

    Delgadillo, J., et al., Early changes, attrition, and dose–response in low intensity psychological interventions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2014. 53(1): p. 114- 130

    2014

  52. [60]

    Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021

    Shah, N., et al., Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021. 19: p. 1-9

    2021

  53. [61]

    Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series

    Malhotra, P ., et al. Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series. in Proceedings. 2015

    2015

  54. [62]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.00148, 2016

    Malhotra, P ., et al., LSTM-based encoder-decoder for multi-sensor anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.00148, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    International Journal of Computer Vision, 2021

    Bergmann, P ., et al., The MVTec anomaly detection dataset: a comprehensive real- world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2021. 129(4): p. 1038-1059

    2021

  56. [64]

    Unsupervised anomaly detection via variational auto-encoder for seasonal kpis in web applications

    Xu, H., et al. Unsupervised anomaly detection via variational auto-encoder for seasonal kpis in web applications. in Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series

    Audibert, J., et al. Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series. in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network

    Su, Y ., et al. Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network. in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    and S.-I

    Lundberg, S.M. and S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017. 30

    2017

  60. [68]

    Expert systems with applications, 2021

    Antwarg, L., et al., Explaining anomalies detected by autoencoders using Shapley Additive Explanations. Expert systems with applications, 2021. 186: p. 115736

    2021

  61. [69]

    Biochemia medica, 2013

    McHugh, M.L., The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia medica, 2013. 23(2): p. 143-149

    2013

  62. [70]

    The Journal of clinical psychiatry,

    Nabi, H., et al., Combined effects of depressive symptoms and resting heart rate on mortality: the Whitehall II prospective cohort study. The Journal of clinical psychiatry,

  63. [71]

    Journal of Affective Disorders, 2025

    Condominas, E., et al., Exploring the dynamic relationships between nocturnal heart rate, sleep disruptions, anxiety levels, and depression severity over time in recurrent major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2025

    2025

  64. [72]

    Freedland, and R.C

    Carney, R.M., K.E. Freedland, and R.C. Veith, Depression, the autonomic nervous system, and coronary heart disease. Psychosomatic medicine, 2005. 67: p. S29-S33

    2005

  65. [73]

    Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2022

    Lutin, E., et al., The cumulative effect of chronic stress and depressive symptoms affects heart rate in a working population. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2022. 13: p. 1022298

    2022

  66. [74]

    Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 2012

    Chang, H.-A., et al., Major depression is associated with cardiac autonomic dysregulation. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 2012. 24(6): p. 318-327

    2012

  67. [75]

    Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine, 2010

    Kop, W.J., et al., Autonomic nervous system dysfunction and inflammation contribute to the increased cardiovascular mortality risk associated with depression. Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine, 2010. 72(7): p. 626-635

    2010

  68. [76]

    JAMA psychiatry, 2022

    Teed, A.R., et al., Association of generalized anxiety disorder with autonomic hypersensitivity and blunted ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity during peripheral adrenergic stimulation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA psychiatry, 2022. 79(4): p. 323-332

    2022

  69. [77]

    Journal of psychiatric research, 2008

    Roth, W.T., et al., Sympathetic activation in broadly defined generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of psychiatric research, 2008. 42(3): p. 205-212

    2008

  70. [78]

    Current psychiatry reports,

    Halaris, A., Inflammation, heart disease, and depression. Current psychiatry reports,

  71. [79]

    Weyerer, S. and B. Kupfer, Physical exercise and psychological health. Sports Medicine, 1994. 17: p. 108-116

    1994

  72. [80]

    Katon, and J

    Roshanaei-Moghaddam, B., W.J. Katon, and J. Russo, The longitudinal effects of depression on physical activity. General hospital psychiatry, 2009. 31(4): p. 306-315

    2009

  73. [81]

    Physical Activity and Nutrition, 2024

    Hossain, M.N., et al., The impact of exercise on depression: how moving makes your brain and body feel better. Physical Activity and Nutrition, 2024. 28(2): p. 43

    2024

  74. [82]

    American journal of preventive medicine, 2009

    McKercher, C.M., et al., Physical activity and depression in young adults. American journal of preventive medicine, 2009. 36(2): p. 161-164

    2009

  75. [83]

    Nikkhah, and S

    Abedi, P ., P . Nikkhah, and S. Najar, Effect of pedometer-based walking on depression, anxiety and insomnia among postmenopausal women. Climacteric, 2015. 18(6): p. 841-845

    2015

  76. [84]

    Roberts, and J.K

    Alvaro, P .K., R.M. Roberts, and J.K. Harris, A systematic review assessing bidirectionality between sleep disturbances, anxiety, and depression. Sleep, 2013. 36(7): p. 1059-1068

    2013

  77. [85]

    Goldstein, A.N. and M.P . Walker, The role of sleep in emotional brain function. Annual review of clinical psychology, 2014. 10(1): p. 679-708

    2014

  78. [86]

    Baldwin, and S

    Oliver, M.D., D.R. Baldwin, and S. Datta, The relationship between sleep and autonomic health. Journal of American College Health, 2020. 68(5): p. 550-556

    2020

  79. [87]

    StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones

    Wang, R., et al. StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones. in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 2014

    2014

  80. [2010]

    127(1-3): p. 122-129

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.