Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34850296›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of bipolar disorders2021

Voice analyses using smartphone-based data in patients with bipolar disorder, unaffected relatives and healthy control individuals, and during different affective states.

Maria Faurholt-Jepsen, Darius Adam Rohani, Jonas Busk, Maj Vinberg, Jakob Eyvind Bardram, Lars Vedel Kessing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of bipolar disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Maria Faurholt-Jepsen *Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Center (CADIC), Psychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. maria@faurholt-jepsen.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0462-6444
Darius Adam Rohani *Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Jonas BuskDepartment of Energy Conversion and Storage, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Maj VinbergCopenhagen Affective Disorder Research Center (CADIC), Psychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jakob Eyvind BardramDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Lars Vedel KessingCopenhagen Affective Disorder Research Center (CADIC), Psychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Augustinusfonden 16-0083Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN EU project 722561Gangstedfonden A29594Helsefonden 16-B-0063Innovation Fund Denmark 5164-00001B9Lundbeck Foundation R215-2015-4121Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, The Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences DFF-4183-00570The Innovation Fund, Denmark 5164-00001BThe Market Development Fund 2015-310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVoice features have been suggested as objective markers of bipolar disorder (BD).

aimsTo investigate whether voice features from naturalistic phone calls could discriminate between (1) BD, unaffected first-degree relatives (UR) and healthy control individuals (HC); (2) affective states within BD.

methodsVoice features were collected daily during naturalistic phone calls for up to 972 days. A total of 121 patients with BD, 21 UR and 38 HC were included. A total of 107.033 voice data entries were collected [BD (n  = 78.733), UR (n  = 8004), and HC (n  =  20.296)]. Daily, patients evaluated symptoms using a smartphone-based system. Affective states were defined according to these evaluations. Data were analyzed using random forest machine learning algorithms.

resultsCompared to HC, BD was classified with a sensitivity of 0.79 (SD 0.11)/AUC  = 0.76 (SD 0.11) and UR with a sensitivity of 0.53 (SD 0.21)/AUC of 0.72 (SD 0.12). Within BD, compared to euthymia, mania was classified with a specificity of 0.75 (SD 0.16)/AUC  =  0.66 (SD 0.11). Compared to euthymia, depression was classified with a specificity of 0.70 (SD 0.16)/AUC  =  0.66 (SD 0.12). In all models the user dependent models outperformed the user independent models. Models combining increased mood, increased activity and insomnia compared to periods without performed best with a specificity of 0.78 (SD 0.16)/AUC  =  0.67 (SD 0.11).

conclusionsVoice features from naturalistic phone calls may represent a supplementary objective marker discriminating BD from HC and a state marker within BD.

Indexed as

Bipolar disorderClassificationopenSMILERandom ForestVoice analysis

Identifiers

PMID34850296
PMCPMC8632566

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.