ArticleJMIR formative research2022
Fairness in Mobile Phone-Based Mental Health Assessment Algorithms: Exploratory Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning for Multimodal Mental Health Detection: A Systematic Review of Passive Sensing Approaches.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Sex and gender in digital mental health: why the data are not neutral.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Review
- Modeling Short-Term Symptom Changes and Behavioral Subtypes of Depression and Anxiety in the General Population: Observational Study Using Smartphone Data.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Strategies for mitigating artificial intelligence bias in healthcare: a systematic review.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Deep learning for autism detection using clinical notes: A comparison of transfer learning for a transparent and black-box approach.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2026Article
- Engagements with Generative AI and Personal Health Informatics: Opportunities for Planning, Tracking, Reflecting, and Acting around Personal Health Data.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Hispanic and Latinx Community Members on AI-Enabled mHealth Tools: Qualitative Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Bias Mitigation in Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating and mitigating unfairness in multimodal remote mental health assessments.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- From quality improvement to equality improvement projects: A scoping review and framework.iScience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 1 in 5 American adults experience mental illness every year. Thus, mobile phone-based mental health prediction apps that use phone data and artificial intelligence techniques for mental health assessment have become increasingly important and are being rapidly developed. At the same time, multiple artificial intelligence-related technologies (eg, face recognition and search results) have recently been reported to be biased regarding age, gender, and race. This study moves this discussion to a new domain: phone-based mental health assessment algorithms. It is important to ensure that such algorithms do not contribute to gender disparities through biased predictions across gender groups.
objectiveThis research aimed to analyze the susceptibility of multiple commonly used machine learning approaches for gender bias in mobile mental health assessment and explore the use of an algorithmic disparate impact remover (DIR) approach to reduce bias levels while maintaining high accuracy.
methodsFirst, we performed preprocessing and model training using the data set (N=55) obtained from a previous study. Accuracy levels and differences in accuracy across genders were computed using 5 different machine learning models. We selected the random forest model, which yielded the highest accuracy, for a more detailed audit and computed multiple metrics that are commonly used for fairness in the machine learning literature. Finally, we applied the DIR approach to reduce bias in the mental health assessment algorithm.
resultsThe highest observed accuracy for the mental health assessment was 78.57%. Although this accuracy level raises optimism, the audit based on gender revealed that the performance of the algorithm was statistically significantly different between the male and female groups (eg, difference in accuracy across genders was 15.85%; P<.001). Similar trends were obtained for other fairness metrics. This disparity in performance was found to reduce significantly after the application of the DIR approach by adapting the data used for modeling (eg, the difference in accuracy across genders was 1.66%, and the reduction is statistically significant with P<.001).
conclusionsThis study grounds the need for algorithmic auditing in phone-based mental health assessment algorithms and the use of gender as a protected attribute to study fairness in such settings. Such audits and remedial steps are the building blocks for the widespread adoption of fair and accurate mental health assessment algorithms in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.