2021
DOI: 10.2147/ndt.s339412
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Screening for Depression in Mobile Devices Using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Data: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis via Machine Learning Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 121 publications
1
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to the current review, two previous systematic reviews showed that AI has a slightly higher performance in detecting patients without depression (specificity) than patients with depression (sensitivity) 14 , 15 . However, the two reviews showed pooled sensitivity (80% 14 and 77% 15 ) and specificity (85% 14 and 78% 15 ) that are slightly lower than those in the current review although they were within the range reported in our review. This may be attributed to the fact that the previous reviews focused on the performance of AI based on only self-reported data collected using mobile-based PHQ-9 14 or neuroimaging data 15 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Similar to the current review, two previous systematic reviews showed that AI has a slightly higher performance in detecting patients without depression (specificity) than patients with depression (sensitivity) 14 , 15 . However, the two reviews showed pooled sensitivity (80% 14 and 77% 15 ) and specificity (85% 14 and 78% 15 ) that are slightly lower than those in the current review although they were within the range reported in our review. This may be attributed to the fact that the previous reviews focused on the performance of AI based on only self-reported data collected using mobile-based PHQ-9 14 or neuroimaging data 15 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…However, the two reviews showed pooled sensitivity (80% 14 and 77% 15 ) and specificity (85% 14 and 78% 15 ) that are slightly lower than those in the current review although they were within the range reported in our review. This may be attributed to the fact that the previous reviews focused on the performance of AI based on only self-reported data collected using mobile-based PHQ-9 14 or neuroimaging data 15 .…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 have been validated for use in various formats, including mobile app and remote administration. Studies have shown that these tools retain their reliability and validity when administered electronically [ 31 , 32 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%