Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Real-Time Stress Monitoring, Detection, and Management in College Students: A Wearable Technology and Machine-Learning Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a 12-week randomized trial in which college students using a smartwatch-and-machine-learning stress app showed a significantly steeper decline in detected, user-confirmed stress moments than controls who only logged…

desk verdict A well-run 12-week RCT whose headline result is undermined because the primary outcome is generated by the same app that delivers the intervention, and no validation of that outcome is provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15974 v2 pith:YWQ7NNJV submitted 2025-05-21 cs.HC cs.LG

Alan Ta , Nilsu Salgin , Mustafa Demir , Kala Phillips Reindel , Ranjana K. Mehta , Anthony McDonald , Carly McCord , Farzan Sasangohar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.LG
keywords MachineLearningMobileHealthPsychologicalStressWearableDevicesCollegeStudentsRandomizedControlledTrialDetectionmIntervention
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

This paper reports a 12-week randomized controlled trial testing whether a smartwatch-based mobile health app, mHELP, can reduce acute stress in college students. The authors claim that students randomized to the full intervention—real-time machine-learning stress detection on an Apple Watch, in-the-moment coping prompts, and optional telehealth counseling—showed a significantly steeper decline in daily Moments of Stress (algorithm-detected, user-confirmed stress events) than a control group that used the app only for logging stress and taking weekly surveys. The trial found this objective moment-level reduction even though weekly questionnaires (GAD-7, PHQ-8, PSS) showed no statistically significant between-group differences; the treatment group did show clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety and perceived stress. The paper argues that wearable-enabled mHealth can reduce acute stress in naturalistic student life and that chronic depression may need longer or more targeted interventions.

What carries the argument

The active mechanism is the mHELP app paired with an Apple Watch (Series 4/5): heart-rate and accelerometer data are sampled at 1 Hz, and a proprietary machine-learning model flags stress moments in real time; the user confirms each flag, and the app immediately offers coping tools such as breathing and focus exercises, with links to telehealth counseling. The statistical machinery that produces the headline result is a generalized linear mixed model with a Gamma distribution and log link, random intercepts and slopes per participant, and a treatment-by-time interaction, which estimates whether the rate of decline in daily stress moments differs between the two groups.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the trial's logged data (or run a new trial) separating algorithm alerts that the user confirmed from alerts the algorithm raised regardless of confirmation, and check the detector against a standardized stressor such as the Trier Social Stress Test in the same student population; if the treatment group's advantage disappears for unconfirmed alerts, or the detector's agreement with the stressor is poor, the headline reduction would be an artifact of confirmation behavior rather than a reduction in stress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Over 12 weeks, 117 college students with at least moderate anxiety (GAD-7 score of 7 or higher) were randomized 3:1 to the full mHELP intervention or to a logging-only control. The primary outcome, Moments of Stress, declined in both groups, but the decline was significantly steeper for the treatment group (treatment simple slope $\beta_{\mathrm{Std}} = -0.127\,(0.013)$, $t(81) = -9.74$, $p < .001$; control $\beta_{\mathrm{Std}} = -0.026\,(0.008)$, $t(81) = -3.29$, $p < .001$; treatment-by-time interaction $p < .001$). Weekly self-reported anxiety (GAD-7) and perceived stress (PSS) also declined, with the treatment group crossing clinically meaningful thresholds (about a 5.25-point GAD-7 drop and just over a 28% PSS drop), though the between-group interaction terms were not significant; depression (PHQ-8) did not improve. The authors conclude that the intervention reduced acute, moment-level stress responses in a real-world student setting, and that the divergence between real-time and weekly measures reflects a difference between acute stress and longer-term psychological state.

Load-bearing premise

The central finding rests on the assumption that the app's stress alerts, after the user confirms them, are a true measure of stress rather than a measure of how much the user engages with the app; the paper reports no check of the detector against a known stress test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A wearable-enabled mHealth app can produce a measurable reduction in moment-level acute stress over a semester, not just in self-reported symptoms.
  • The logging-only control group also showed downward trends in anxiety and stress, suggesting that weekly self-monitoring alone may carry some benefit and makes between-group differences harder to detect.
  • Depressive symptoms, which started near the mild range, did not respond within 12 weeks; testing the intervention longer or with depression-specific content is needed before concluding it works for depression.
  • Because the treatment-control separation grows with time (significant interaction), longer deployments should show larger acute-stress benefits if the effect is real.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's primary outcome conflates the algorithm's detection with the user's confirmation; separating raw alerts from confirmations in future analyses would reveal whether the intervention lowers physiological stress events or changes users' willingness to label moments as stressful.
  • Editorial inference: if the proprietary detector were validated against a standardized stressor and against unconfirmed alerts, Moments of Stress could become a reusable outcome for other just-in-time mHealth interventions aimed at panic, cravings, or pain episodes.
  • Editorial inference: because the control arm was an active logging condition rather than a no-contact condition, the between-group comparison isolates the added value of the intervention; a wait-list control would likely show a larger effect, so the paper's estimate may be conservative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a 12-week randomized controlled trial (n = 117 completers) comparing a full mHELP intervention to a logging-only control among college students with moderate anxiety. The primary outcome, "Moments of Stress" (MS), is defined as daily counts of stress events detected by a proprietary machine-learning algorithm embedded in the same app and confirmed by the user. Using a Gamma Generalized Linear Mixed Model with a log link on a shifted version of MS, the authors report a significantly steeper decline in MS for the treatment group than for the control group. Secondary questionnaire outcomes (GAD-7, PHQ-8, PSS) show no significant group-by-time interactions, although within-group declines for GAD-7 and PSS are interpreted as clinically meaningful. The paper concludes that the mHELP intervention reduces acute stress moments in real-world settings.

Significance. If the primary outcome were valid and independent of the intervention, this would be a valuable contribution to the mHealth and wearable-sensing literature: it reports a longitudinal, naturalistic RCT with passive sensing, a plausible intervention mechanism, and standardized secondary measures. The paper also gives credit for transparently discussing limitations and using a pre-registered-style power analysis. However, the central claim rests entirely on the MS outcome, which is generated by the same system being evaluated and is never validated against an independent stress measure. The secondary, independently validated outcomes do not show between-group effects, so the manuscript as it stands does not support its headline conclusion. The contribution is therefore currently more of an engineering demonstration than a validated efficacy result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Measures and Metrics] The primary outcome MS is not an independent or validated measure of stress. MS events are defined as moments detected by the app's proprietary machine-learning algorithm and subsequently approved by the user, with self-reported events also aggregated into the daily score. No sensitivity, specificity, calibration, or external validation of the detector is reported, and raw heart-rate or accelerometer data are not analyzed as an independent benchmark. Moreover, the treatment arm uses the same app that generates the alerts and additionally receives real-time prompts to confirm stress and perform breathing or focus exercises; this creates a direct pathway for the intervention to mechanically change the recorded outcome through altered detection and confirmation behavior, independent of any true change in stress. Because the manuscript's central claim is the treatment-by-time effect on MS, this lack of outcome validation and intervention-contamination is load-bearing. The authors should either validate MS against an independent physiological or clinical criterion, or report an analysis that does not depend on user confirmation (e.g., algorithm-only events, raw HR/accelerometer features); without such analysis, the reported p<0.001 cannot be interpreted as evidence of stress reduction.
  2. [Data Analytics and Results (MS)] The Gamma GLMM is applied to a zero-inflated daily count after adding an unreported "small constant" to create MSshift. A Gamma distribution with log link is a model for a continuous, strictly positive response with constant coefficient of variation, not for a discrete count with many zeros; the arbitrary shift constant can materially change the fitted coefficients, yet its value is not reported. The reported unstandardized interaction coefficient of -6.80 for Treatment*Time is on the log scale and is implausibly large for a 12-week study unless time is scaled in a very unusual way; this suggests either a different scaling than described or a misspecification. The authors should report the exact shifted variable, the value of the constant, the time unit, fit diagnostics, and sensitivity analyses using alternatives such as negative binomial, hurdle, or zero-inflated models. Without these, the numerical magnitude and even the direction of the central effect are not reproducible.
  3. [Procedure and Data Analysis] The analysis does not establish that the randomization produced comparable groups or that missing data are handled appropriately. The treatment arm (n=86) is much larger than the control arm (n=31), which is expected under 3:1 allocation, but no baseline table reports MS, GAD-7, PHQ-8, or PSS by condition, and no test of baseline imbalance is provided. The text itself notes that the treatment condition had a lower baseline level of the log-transformed outcome, so the group comparison may partly reflect baseline differences rather than intervention effects. In addition, the Results sections report varying N values (125, 126) despite 117 completers, with no statement about missing data or the number of observations in the GLMMs. The authors should report baseline descriptive statistics and tests, the analysis sample, and a missing-data sensitivity analysis; without this, the robustness of the group-by-time interaction is unclear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Measures and Metrics] The text refers to the "binary nature of the data" after describing MS as a daily aggregate count; these are inconsistent, and the authors should clarify whether the analysis unit is the individual stress event or the daily frequency.
  2. [Data Analytics and Results (MS)] The simple-slope values reported in the text (treatment beta_std = -0.127, control beta_std = -0.026) do not match the standardized fixed-effect coefficients in Table 1 (beta_std = -0.10 for the interaction and -0.03 for Time); the notation should be made consistent so readers can follow which quantity is being reported.
  3. [Data Analytics and Results (MS)] The model description says random intercepts and slopes for Time were included, but Formula 1 specifies a random slope for condition (u1j cij) and the subsequent variance components are described as "treatment slope"; this discrepancy should be corrected.
  4. [Discussion] The clinically meaningful change claims for GAD-7 and PSS are based on within-group modeled changes despite non-significant interaction terms; these should be labeled as exploratory post hoc observations, not as efficacy evidence.
  5. [References] Reference [40] appears to duplicate reference [18]; please consolidate or distinguish them appropriately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the treatment effect on Moments of Stress is an empirical estimate, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, the paper does not derive its central result from its inputs. The primary outcome, Moments of Stress (MS), is an empirically measured count of algorithm-detected, user-confirmed stress events (Measures and Metrics section); the GLMM estimates a group-by-time interaction from these counts. The finding that the treatment slope is steeper is a data-dependent estimate, not a logical consequence of the definition of MS or of the treatment condition. The proprietary ML detector is unvalidated and the confirmation step is part of the app experience, so MS may reflect app responsiveness rather than stress; this is a measurement-validity threat that should be weighed in a correctness review, but it does not make the statistical result equivalent to the inputs by construction. The secondary outcomes (GAD-7, PHQ-8, PSS) are standard, externally validated scales and show no significant group-by-time interactions, further indicating the MS result is not an artifact of the analytic model. Self-citations (refs 24, 31, 32, 33) are background or method citations to published peer-reviewed work and are not load-bearing for the main efficacy claim. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar. The relevant concerns about detector validity and intervention-contaminated confirmation are important limitations, but they belong to construct validity and causal interpretation, not to circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central MS result rests on an unvalidated measurement entity, an unreported transformation constant, an undisclosed set of ML parameters, and an untested comparability assumption for the randomized groups. The secondary questionnaire outcomes are external and standard, which is why the paper has some independent grounding, but the primary claim is not independently capturable from the text.

free parameters (3)
  • MS shift constant = not reported (described as a small constant)
    Added to every MS value so a Gamma GLMM can be fit to strictly positive data; the value is not given and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Box-Cox lambda for MS and survey outcomes = not reported
    Box-Cox transformations are applied to MS, GAD-7, PHQ-8, and PSS, but the estimated lambda values are never reported, making the transformed scales unreproducible.
  • ML stress detector weights and thresholds = undisclosed, proprietary machine learning model
    The primary outcome is defined by this model's detections; without its fitted parameters or validation metrics, the outcome cannot be independently recomputed.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma distribution with log link is an appropriate model for the shifted MS variable
    The Gamma family is chosen after normality tests fail, and an unreported constant is added; the data are count-like and zero-inflated, so this is a convenience assumption, not a generative model.
  • domain assumption Algorithm-detected and user-confirmed stress events aggregated daily constitute a valid measure of acute stress
    This defines the primary outcome, but no evidence is presented that the detector agrees with a gold-standard stress measure or is unbiased across the two conditions.
  • domain assumption 3:1 sequential randomization produced comparable groups
    No baseline table is given; the fitted treatment main effect is large (-1.61 log units), implying the treatment group had a substantially lower MS baseline, which is inconsistent with exchangeability or suggests regression to the mean.
  • domain assumption Apple Watch HR sampling at 1 Hz is sufficiently accurate for stress detection in naturalistic settings
    The paper cites prior work [31] instead of validating wrist photoplethysmography under the movement and wear conditions of this study.
invented entities (1)
  • Moments of Stress (MS) composite outcome
    purpose: Daily count of stress moments flagged by the proprietary ML algorithm and confirmed by the user; serves as the primary efficacy endpoint
    MS is a new operational measure introduced by the authors. No external validation, no comparison with a clinical or physiological gold standard, and no evidence that the detector behaves equivalently across conditions. It is therefore an invented entity with no independent support in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Stress Monitoring, Detection, and Management in College Students: A Wearable Technology and Machine-Learning Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWQ7NNJV

@misc{pith2026250515974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Stress Monitoring, Detection, and Management in College Students: A Wearable Technology and Machine-Learning Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWQ7NNJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15974}
}
read the original abstract

College students are increasingly affected by stress, anxiety, and depression, yet face barriers to traditional mental health care. This study evaluated the efficacy of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention, Mental Health Evaluation and Lookout Program (mHELP), which integrates a smartwatch sensor and machine learning (ML) algorithms for real-time stress detection and self-management. In a 12-week randomized controlled trial (n = 117), participants were assigned to a treatment group using mHELP's full suite of interventions or a control group using the app solely for real-time stress logging and weekly psychological assessments. The primary outcome, "Moments of Stress" (MS), was assessed via physiological and self-reported indicators and analyzed using Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) approaches. Similarly, secondary outcomes of psychological assessments, including the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) for anxiety, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) for depression, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), were also analyzed via GLMM. The finding of the objective measure, MS, indicates a substantial decrease in MS among the treatment group compared to the control group, while no notable between-group differences were observed in subjective scores of anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-8), or stress (PSS). However, the treatment group exhibited a clinically meaningful decline in GAD-7 and PSS scores. These findings underscore the potential of wearable-enabled mHealth tools to reduce acute stress in college populations and highlight the need for extended interventions and tailored features to address chronic symptoms like depression.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mental Health of College Students and Their Non–College-Attending Peers: Results From the National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions,

    C. Blanco et al., “Mental Health of College Students and Their Non–College-Attending Peers: Results From the National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions,” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 1429–1437, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429

    work page doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429 2008

  2. [2]

    The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education,

    M. C. Pascoe, S. E. Hetrick, and A. G. Parker, “The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education,” Int. J. Adolesc. Youth, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 104–112, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    College life is stressful today – Emerging stressors and depressive symptoms in college students,

    L. Acharya, L. Jin, and W. Collins, “College life is stressful today – Emerging stressors and depressive symptoms in college students,” J. Am. Coll. Health, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 655–664, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1451869

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Predictors of Stress in College Students,

    D. Saleh, N. Camart, and L. Romo, “Predictors of Stress in College Students,” Front. Psychol., vol. 8, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00019

    work page arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2019,

    “American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2019,” American College Health Association, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://portal.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA- II_SPRING_2019_US_REFERENCE_GROUP_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Fall 2020,

    “American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary Fall 2020,” American College Health Association, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Mental stress and human cardiovascular disease,

    M. Esler, “Mental stress and human cardiovascular disease,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., vol. 74, pp. 269–276, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.011 2017

  8. [8]

    Exploring the impact of depression, anxiety, stress, academic engagement, and dropout intention on medical students’ academic performance: A prospective study,

    J. Sinval, P. Oliveira, F. Novais, C. M. Almeida, and D. Telles-Correia, “Exploring the impact of depression, anxiety, stress, academic engagement, and dropout intention on medical students’ academic performance: A prospective study,” J. Affect. Disord., vol. 368, pp. 665–673, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.116

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.116 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Overview of Evidence-Based Assessment and Treatment,

    C. L. Lancaster, J. B. Teeters, D. F. Gros, and S. E. Back, “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Overview of Evidence-Based Assessment and Treatment,” J. Clin. Med., vol. 5, no. 11, p. 105, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.3390/jcm5110105

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mobile Health: App Investigation and Scoping Literature Review,

    C. Rodriguez-Paras et al., “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mobile Health: App Investigation and Scoping Literature Review,” JMIR MHealth UHealth, vol. 5, no. 10, p. e7318, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7318

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    The effects of health coaching on adult patients with chronic diseases: A systematic review,

    K. Kivelä, S. Elo, H. Kyngäs, and M. Kääriäinen, “The effects of health coaching on adult patients with chronic diseases: A systematic review,” Patient Educ. Couns., vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 147–157, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.07.026

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Mobile Apps for Health Behavior Change in Physical Activity, Diet, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Mental Health: Systematic Review,

    M. Milne-Ives, C. Lam, C. D. Cock, M. H. V. Velthoven, and E. Meinert, “Mobile Apps for Health Behavior Change in Physical Activity, Diet, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Mental Health: Systematic Review,” JMIR MHealth UHealth, vol. 8, no. 3, p. e17046, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.2196/17046

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review,

    E. G. Lattie, E. C. Adkins, N. Winquist, C. Stiles-Shields, Q. E. Wafford, and A. K. Graham, “Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 21, no...

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    The Emergence of AI-Based Wearable Sensors for Digital Health Technology: A Review,

    S. Shajari, K. Kuruvinashetti, A. Komeili, and U. Sundararaj, “The Emergence of AI-Based Wearable Sensors for Digital Health Technology: A Review,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 23, p. 9498, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23239498

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    The Effect of Mindfulness-Based Therapy on Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analytic Review,

    S. G. Hofmann, A. T. Sawyer, A. A. Witt, and D. Oh, “The Effect of Mindfulness-Based Therapy on Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analytic Review,” J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 169–183, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1037/a0018555

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Wearables for Stress Management: A Scoping Review,

    M. L. González Ramírez, J. P. García Vázquez, M. D. Rodríguez, L. A. Padilla-López, G. M. Galindo-Aldana, and D. Cuevas-González, “Wearables for Stress Management: A Scoping Review,” Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 17, p. 2369, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.3390/healthcare11172369

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Digital Mental Health Interventions for University Students With Mental Health Difficulties: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,

    A. Madrid‐Cagigal et al., “Digital Mental Health Interventions for University Students With Mental Health Difficulties: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Early Interv. Psychiatry, vol. 19, no. 3, p. e70017, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1111/eip.70017

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    Digital interventions to address mental health needs in colleges: Perspectives of student stakeholders,

    N. Topooco et al., “Digital interventions to address mental health needs in colleges: Perspectives of student stakeholders,” Internet Interv., vol. 28, p. 100528, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2022.100528

    2022

  11. [20]

    Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables,

    J. M. Smyth, “Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables,” J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 174–184, 1998, doi: 10.1037/0022- 006X.66.1.174

    1998 doi

  12. [21]

    How Breath-Control Can Change Your Life: A Systematic Review on Psycho- Physiological Correlates of Slow Breathing,

    A. Zaccaro et al., “How Breath-Control Can Change Your Life: A Systematic Review on Psycho- Physiological Correlates of Slow Breathing,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 12, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00353

    2018

  13. [22]

    Empower Psychotherapy with mHealth Apps: The Design of ‘Safer’, an Emotion Regulation Application,

    F. Diano, L. S. Sica, and M. Ponticorvo, “Empower Psychotherapy with mHealth Apps: The Design of ‘Safer’, an Emotion Regulation Application,” Information, vol. 14, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/info14060308

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    Evaluating the Reproducibility of Physiological Stress Detection Models,

    V. Mishra et al., “Evaluating the Reproducibility of Physiological Stress Detection Models,” Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., vol. 4, no. 4, p. 147, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1145/3432220

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    Analyzing physiological responses to quantify anxiety disorders: A scoping review,

    S. Ziyadidegan, M. Razavi, and F. Sasangohar, “Analyzing physiological responses to quantify anxiety disorders: A scoping review,” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 2183–2187, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1177/1071181322661304

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Analysis of Mobile App-Based Mental Health Solutions for College Students: A Rapid Review,

    A. Choudhury, A. Kuehn, H. Shamszare, and Y. Shahsavar, “Analysis of Mobile App-Based Mental Health Solutions for College Students: A Rapid Review,” Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 272, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/healthcare11020272

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,

    F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner, “G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,” Behav. Res. Methods, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 175–191, May 2007, doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    Men’s Dropout From Mental Health Services: Results From a Survey of Australian Men Across the Life Span,

    Z. E. Seidler, M. J. Wilson, D. Kealy, J. L. Oliffe, J. S. Ogrodniczuk, and S. M. Rice, “Men’s Dropout From Mental Health Services: Results From a Survey of Australian Men Across the Life Span,” Am. J. Mens Health, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 15579883211014776, 2021, doi: 10.1177/15579...

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7,

    R. L. Spitzer, K. Kroenke, J. B. W. Williams, and B. Löwe, “A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7,” Arch. Intern. Med., vol. 166, no. 10, pp. 1092–1097, May 2006, doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

    2006 doi

  20. [29]

    The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population,

    K. Kroenke, T. W. Strine, R. L. Spitzer, J. B. W. Williams, J. T. Berry, and A. H. Mokdad, “The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population,” J. Affect. Disord., vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 163–173, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026

    2009 doi

  21. [30]

    Review of the Psychometric Evidence of the Perceived Stress Scale,

    E.-H. Lee, “Review of the Psychometric Evidence of the Perceived Stress Scale,” Asian Nurs. Res., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 121–127, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004

    2012 doi

  22. [31]

    Studying heart rate behavior and rhythm using trend analysis methods among university students

    S. Ziyadidegan, A. H. Javid, and F. Sasangohar, “Studying heart rate behavior and rhythm using trend analysis methods among university students”

  23. [32]

    Posttraumatic stress disorder hyperarousal event detection using smartwatch physiological and activity data,

    M. Sadeghi, A. D. McDonald, and F. Sasangohar, “Posttraumatic stress disorder hyperarousal event detection using smartwatch physiological and activity data,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 5, p. e0267749, May 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267749

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Understanding Heart Rate Reactions to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Among Veterans: A Naturalistic Study,

    M. Sadeghi, F. Sasangohar, A. D. McDonald, and S. Hegde, “Understanding Heart Rate Reactions to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Among Veterans: A Naturalistic Study,” Hum. Factors, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 173–187, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1177/00187208211034024

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    Generalized Linear Models,

    J. A. Nelder and R. W. M. Wedderburn, “Generalized Linear Models,” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. Gen., vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 370–384, 1972, doi: 10.2307/2344614

    1972 doi

  26. [35]

    K. Ju, L. Lin, H. Chu, L.-L. Cheng, and C. Xu, “Laplace approximation, penalized quasi-likelihood, and adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature for generalized linear mixed models: towards meta-analysis of binary outcome with sparse data,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 20, no. 1, p. ...

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives,

    M. J. D. Powell, “The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives,” University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Massachusetts, NA2009/06, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://bison.ihep.su/~kachaev/books/Powell/NA2009_06_bobyqa_bound_constrained.pdf

    2009

  28. [37]

    Bates et al., lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4

    D. Bates et al., lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4. (Jul. 03, 2024). Accessed: Dec. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

    2024

  29. [38]

    Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish consensus version of the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale,

    A. Eskildsen et al., “Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish consensus version of the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale,” Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 486–490, 2015

    2015

  30. [39]

    Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7),

    A. Toussaint et al., “Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7),” J. Affect. Disord., vol. 265, pp. 395–401, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.032

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Digital Mental Health Interventions for College Students: A Systematic Review,

    M. E. Taylor, M. Liu, S. Abelson, D. Eisenberg, S. K. Lipson, and S. M. Schueller, “The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Digital Mental Health Interventions for College Students: A Systematic Review,” Curr. Psychiatry Rep., vol. 26, no. 12, pp...

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    Is there a better telehealth platform for your practice?,

    N. Owings-Fonner, “Is there a better telehealth platform for your practice?,” American Psychology Association, Services Inc. Accessed: Apr. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.apaservices.org/practice/business/technology/tech-column/telehealth-platforms

    2025

  33. [42]

    How sample size influences research outcomes,

    J. Faber and L. M. Fonseca, “How sample size influences research outcomes,” Dent. Press J. Orthod., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 27–29, 2014, doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland,

    C. A. Latkin, C. Edwards, M. A. Davey-Rothwell, and K. E. Tobin, “The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland,” Addict. Behav., vol. 73, pp. 133–136, ...

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.