ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparative study of an ai-based visual psychophysiological analysis platform and self-report scales for screening depression and anxiety: a single-center prospective diagnostic study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression and anxiety are among the most prevalent psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. Their high comorbidity and the inherent subjectivity of self-report screening tools have motivated efforts to identify objective, physiology-based digital phenotypes. Objectives: To rigorously evaluate the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence visual analysis platform based on head-neck micro-vibration signals for screening depression and anxiety, to compare its differences and complementarities with traditional self-report scales, and to develop and explore the potential utility of a combined "AI broad screening + scale refinement" approach. Methods: We conducted a single-center prospective diagnostic study enrolling 98 outpatients. A psychiatrist-administered structured interview grounded in DSM-5 served as the clinical diagnosis. All participants completed Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) assessments in parallel with testing by the AI psychophysiological analysis system. We constructed confusion matrices, calculated F1 scores, and generated receiver operating characteristic curves and decision curve analyses to quantify and compare the screening and stratification performance of each tool and of the combined models. Results: For depression-risk screening, the AI tool demonstrated very high sensitivity (95.9%), exceeding that of the SDS (83.6%). The combined "AI + SDS" model further increased sensitivity to 98.6%, demonstrating a minimized false-negative rate in this cohort. For anxiety, integrating AI with the SAS increased recall by 50.0% (to 69.2%) and improved the F1 score by 25.4%. In-depth analyses revealed that the AI system was particularly effective at identifying "silent patients" with alexithymia or prominent somatization, whereas the scales aligned more closely with clinical judgment for fine-grained severity grading. ROC and decision curve analyses consistently showed that the combined "AI + SDS/SAS" model achieved the best overall discrimination and greatest net clinical benefit. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that an AI tool based on head-neck micro-vibration signals can serve as a high-sensitivity, objective sentinel, mitigating the risk of missed cases associated with subjective self-report scales in specific populations. AI and self-report measures capture complementary facets of psychopathology. A tiered workflow of "AI broad screening + scale refinement" may constitutes a translationally promising paradigm to facilitate earlier, more objective, and efficient screening and to support more precise interventions in psychiatric disorders.
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.