ArticleScientific reports2026
A causal discovery framework for digital phenotyping.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Digital phenotyping, the moment-by-moment quantification of human behavior using data from personal devices and sensors, has shown great promise in predicting mental health outcomes. However, the field is reaching a 'predictive plateau,' where models, while accurate, are often opaque black boxes that offer limited insight into underlying mechanisms of well-being. This paper proposes a fundamental paradigm shift from predictive classification to structural causal modeling. We introduce a two-stage computational framework that first learns unified daily behavioral embeddings from multimodal sensor data using a CNN-based encoder, and then applies neuro-symbolic causal discovery to infer interpretable directed graphs of behavioral-psychological dynamics. In our evaluation, we observed clear signs of this predictive plateau: even deep embedding models performed only slightly better than chance in stress prediction (best AUC = 0.532). By comparison, the causal approach identified candidate time-lagged associations; for example, lower levels of sleep activity ([Formula: see text]) and reduced mobility ([Formula: see text]) often appeared as preceding indicators of stress episodes. Dimensionality reduction via PCA retained five principal components explaining approximately 85% of the variance, enabling post-hoc interpretation of candidate behavioral components such as "Stationary Social Engagement." We define these components and their associated edge weights as candidate causal biomarkers: hypothesis-generating indicators of possible lagged behavior-stress relationships, rather than confirmed interventional causal effects.
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.