| Literature DB >> 30634621 |
Laura A Zanella-Calzada1, Carlos E Galván-Tejada2, Nubia M Chávez-Lamas3, M Del Carmen Gracia-Cortés4, Rafael Magallanes-Quintanar5, José M Celaya-Padilla6, Jorge I Galván-Tejada7, Hamurabi Gamboa-Rosales8.
Abstract
Depression is a mental disorder characterized by recurrent sadness and loss of interest in the enjoyment of the positive aspects of life, in addition to fatigue, causing inability to perform daily activities, which leads to a loss of quality of life. To monitor depression (unipolar and bipolar patients), traditional methods rely on reports from patients; nevertheless, bias is commonly present in them. To overcome this problem, Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) reports have been widely used, which include data of the behavior, feelings and other types of activities recorded almost in real time through the use of portable devices and smartphones containing motion sensors. In this work a methodology was proposed to detect depressive subjects from control subjects based in the data of their motor activity, recorded by a wearable device, obtained from the "Depresjon" database. From the motor activity signals, the extraction of statistical features was carried out to subsequently feed a random forest classifier. Results show a sensitivity value of 0.867, referring that those subjects with presence of depression have a degree of 86.7% of being correctly classified, while the specificity shows a value of 0.919, referring that those subjects with absence of depression have a degree of 91.9% of being classified with a correct response, using the motor activity signal provided from the wearable device. Based on these results, it is concluded that the motor activity allows distinguishing between the two classes, providing a preliminary and automated tool to specialists for the diagnosis of depression.Entities:
Keywords: classification; depresjon database; depression; feature extraction; motor activity; random forest
Year: 2019 PMID: 30634621 PMCID: PMC6468429 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9010008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flowchart of the methodology followed. Blue squares refers to the data processing step and gray squares details task dones in each step (A–E).
Figure 2Example of samples collected with the Actiwatch of a control and a case of the Depresjon database.
Statistical features collected.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Mean |
|
| Standard deviation |
|
| Variance |
|
| Trimmed mean | Mean with outliers trimmed. |
| Coefficient of variation |
|
| Inverse coefficient of variation |
|
| Kurtosis |
|
| Skewness * |
|
| Quantile * 1, 5, 25, 75, 95, 99% |
|
* represents the median value; 1 ≤ i ≤ 9, ≤ p <; represents the jth order statistic; n represents the sample size; is in function of j and g, where and ; and m represents a constant determined by the sample quantile type.
Confusion matrix of the subjects classification based in the RF approach.
| Control | Case | Error | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1369 | 114 | 0.077 |
|
| 132 | 1135 | 0.104 |
Figure 3ROC curve obtained from the classification analysis based in RF.
Confusion matrix of the validation through a blind test.
| Control | Case | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 637 | 91 |
|
| 56 | 591 |
Parameters obtained through validation.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.893 |
| Sensitivity | 0.867 |
| Specificity | 0.919 |
| Balanced accuracy | 0.892 |
| PPV | 0.875 |
| NPV | 0.931 |
Machine learning techniques comparison.
| Technique | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Nearest Neighbors | 0.696 | 0.675 |
| Linear SVM | 0.726 | 0.727 |
| Random Forest | 0.703 | 0.700 |
| Neural Net | 0.716 | 0.719 |
| AdaBoost | 0.707 | 0.706 |
| Naive Bayes | 0.688 | 0.694 |
| Our proposal (Feature extraction & RF) | 0.919 | 0.893 |