Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41191793›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Key Features of Digital Phenotyping for Monitoring Mental Disorders: Systematic Review.

Hyun Woo Jung, Do Yeon Kim, Ilju Lee, Ok Kim, Seungjin Lee, Sujin Lee, Un Sun Chung, Jae-Hyun Kim, Sehwan Kim, Jung Won Kim and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

12 authors.

Hyun Woo JungDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6799-5987
Do Yeon KimDepartment of Psychotherapy, College of Health and Welfare Sciences, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0788-9537
Ilju LeeDigital Mental Health Innovation Center, Dankook University, Dongnam-gu, 201 Manghyang-ro, Cheonan-si, 31116, Republic of Korea, 82 415506390.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3735-3179
Ok KimDigital Mental Health Innovation Center, Dankook University, Dongnam-gu, 201 Manghyang-ro, Cheonan-si, 31116, Republic of Korea, 82 415506390.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-4198
Seungjin LeeDepartment of Medical Laser, Graduate School of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7894-5719
Sujin LeeDepartment of Medical Laser, Graduate School of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6346-2281
Un Sun ChungDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3871-1425
Jae-Hyun KimDepartment of Health Administration, College of Health Science, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3531-489X
Sehwan KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5491-3732
Jung Won KimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5278-4260
Ah Lahm ShinDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7158-1979
Jung Jae LeeDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0828-3557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified mental health issues globally, highlighting the urgent need for remote mental health monitoring. Digital phenotyping using smart devices has emerged as a promising approach, but it remains unclear which features are essential for predicting depression and anxiety. Objective: This study aimed to identify the types of features collected through smart packages-integrated systems combining smartphones with wearable devices such as Actiwatches, smart bands, and smartwatches-and to determine which features should be considered essential for mental health monitoring based on the type of device used. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed across Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus on February 5, 2025. Inclusion criteria comprised quantitative studies involving adults (≥19 years) using smart devices to predict depression or anxiety based on passive data collection. Studies focusing solely on smartphones or qualitative designs were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Criteria Checklist. Data were synthesized descriptively, and the relative contribution of each feature was further assessed by calculating coverage (proportion of studies using a feature) and importance among used (proportion identifying it as important when used). These metrics were visualized in quadrant-based scatter plots to identify consistently important features across devices. Results: From 1382 records, 22 studies across 11 countries were included. The overall synthesis identified a core feature package-accelerometer, steps, heart rate (HR), and sleep. Device-specific analyses revealed further nuances: in Actiwatch studies, accelerometer and activity were consistently important, but sleep features were rarely examined. In smart band studies, HR, steps, sleep, and phone usage were essential, while GPS, electrodermal activity (EDA), and skin temperature showed high importance when used, suggesting opportunities for broader adoption. In smartwatch studies, sleep and HR emerged as core features, whereas steps and accelerometer were widely used but often not identified as important. Conclusions: This systematic review identified a core feature package comprising accelerometer, steps, HR, and sleep that consistently contributes to mood disorder prediction across devices. At the same time, device-specific differences were observed: Actiwatch studies mainly emphasized accelerometer and activity but underused sleep features; smart bands highlighted HR, steps, sleep, and phone usage, with EDA, skin temperature, and GPS showing additional promise; and smartwatches most reliably leveraged sleep and HR, while steps and accelerometer were widely used yet less effective. These findings suggest that while a shared core set of features exists, optimizing digital phenotyping requires tailoring feature selection to the characteristics of each device type. To advance this field, improving data accessibility, particularly in smartwatch ecosystems, and adopting standardized reporting frameworks will be essential to enhance comparability, reproducibility, and future meta-analytic integration.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersCOVID-19HumansPhenotypeSARS-CoV-2SmartphoneTelemedicineWearable Electronic Devicesanxietydepressiondigital phenotypingmobile sensingPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAwearable devices

Identifiers

PMID41191793
PMCPMC12588392

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.