ArticlePloS one2026
Estimating presenteeism from repeated smartphone-based multimodal behavioral responses.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presenteeism, attending work despite physical or mental health problems, is a major source of productivity loss worldwide, yet its early detection in everyday settings remains challenging. Conventional self-report instruments are time-consuming and require psychiatrist interpretation, which limits their scalability. We developed a multimodal machine-learning model that estimates work-function impairment as an indicator of presenteeism from brief smartphone-based dialogues. 38 employees recorded short self-report videos (10-30 s) using front-facing smartphone cameras, which were independently rated on an ordinal three-level work-function scale (Healthy / Moderate / Unwell) by three psychiatrists; the consensus label served as supervision. We tested whether integrating multimodal behavioural signals (acoustic, facial, and linguistic) would provide additional cues beyond linguistic content alone, particularly when verbal cues are sparse. Acoustic, facial, and linguistic features were extracted from each clip and integrated using a three-stream Attention-based Multiple Instance Learning (Attention-MIL) framework with learned late fusion, an ordinal-regression head, and class-prior logit adjustment. Generalisation was assessed under a participant-disjoint protocol (25-fold repeated GroupKFold; n = 1,768 out-of-fold clips from 29 participants). On the Full configuration, the proposed multimodal framework achieved macro-F1 = 0.772 (95% CI [0.697, 0.817]), accuracy = 0.840, macro-AUROC = 0.940, and low expected calibration error (ECE ≈0.024). At the aggregate level, the four text-containing configurations (Full / Audio+Text / Face+Text / Text-only) were mutually indistinguishable on macro-F1 (Holm-Bonferroni padj > 0.40), whereas text-free configurations performed substantially worse (Δ<-0.33, padj < 0.001), confirming the necessity of the linguistic channel. In an exploratory subgroup analysis, Audio+Text outperformed Text-only in the clinically ambiguous subgroup-short-speech responses from non-Healthy participants (n = 77; Δ macro-F1 =+0.030, exploratory, requires replication). These findings provide localised but clinically meaningful support for the multimodal hypothesis under low-information conditions and motivate prospective replication.
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.