Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36001220›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2022

Digital Phenotyping for Mental Health: Reviewing the Challenges of Using Data to Monitor and Predict Mental Health Problems.

Rasmus H Birk, Gabrielle Samuel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Rethinking Ethics for an Era of Trusted Computational Tools.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

2 authors.

Rasmus H BirkDepartment of Communication & Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. rbirk@ikp.aau.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-3740-4765
Gabrielle SamuelDepartment of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe review recent developments within digital phenotyping for mental health, a field dedicated to using digital data for diagnosing, predicting, and monitoring mental health problems. We especially focus on recent critiques and challenges to digital phenotyping from within the social sciences. RECENT

findingsThree significant strands of criticism against digital phenotyping for mental health have been developed within the social sciences. This literature problematizes the idea that digital data can be objective, that it can be unbiased, and argues that it has multiple ethical and practical challenges. Digital phenotyping for mental health is a rapidly growing and developing field, but with considerable challenges that are not easily solvable. This includes when, and if, data from digital phenotyping is actionable in practice; the involvement of user and patient perspectives in digital phenotyping research; the possibility of biased data; and challenges to the idea that digital phenotyping can be more objective than other forms of psychiatric assessment.

Indexed as

Mental HealthHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicDigital phenotypingEthicsExplainabilityObjectivitySociology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.