Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32833958›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Applying machine learning in motor activity time series of depressed bipolar and unipolar patients compared to healthy controls.

Petter Jakobsen, Enrique Garcia-Ceja, Michael Riegler, Lena Antonsen Stabell, Tine Nordgreen, Jim Torresen, Ole Bernt Fasmer, Ketil Joachim Oedegaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Interpretable Machine Learning for Survival Analysis.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Petter JakobsenNORMENT, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7671-2456
Enrique Garcia-CejaSINTEF Digital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6864-8557
Michael RieglerSimula Metropolitan Center for Digitalisation, Oslo, Norway.
Lena Antonsen StabellNORMENT, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Tine NordgreenDivision of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Jim TorresenDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ole Bernt FasmerNORMENT, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ketil Joachim OedegaardNORMENT, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current practice of assessing mood episodes in affective disorders largely depends on subjective observations combined with semi-structured clinical rating scales. Motor activity is an objective observation of the inner physiological state expressed in behavior patterns. Alterations of motor activity are essential features of bipolar and unipolar depression. The aim was to investigate if objective measures of motor activity can aid existing diagnostic practice, by applying machine-learning techniques to analyze activity patterns in depressed patients and healthy controls. Random Forrest, Deep Neural Network and Convolutional Neural Network algorithms were used to analyze 14 days of actigraph recorded motor activity from 23 depressed patients and 32 healthy controls. Statistical features analyzed in the dataset were mean activity, standard deviation of mean activity and proportion of zero activity. Various techniques to handle data imbalance were applied, and to ensure generalizability and avoid overfitting a Leave-One-User-Out validation strategy was utilized. All outcomes reports as measures of accuracy for binary tests. A Deep Neural Network combined with SMOTE class balancing technique performed a cut above the rest with a true positive rate of 0.82 (sensitivity) and a true negative rate of 0.84 (specificity). Accuracy was 0.84 and the Matthews Correlation Coefficient 0.65. Misclassifications appear related to data overlapping among the classes, so an appropriate future approach will be to compare mood states intra-individualistically. In summary, machine-learning techniques present promising abilities in discriminating between depressed patients and healthy controls in motor activity time series.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBipolar DisorderDepressionFemaleHumansMachine LearningMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMood DisordersMotor ActivityNeural Networks, ComputerSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32833958
PMCPMC7446864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.