| Literature DB >> 35684797 |
Jinyoung Choi1, Soomin Lee1, Seonyoung Kim1, Dongil Kim1, Hyungshin Kim1.
Abstract
Depression in the elderly is an important social issue considering the population aging of the world. In particular, elderly living alone who has narrowed social relationship due to bereavement and retirement are more prone to be depressed. Long-term depressed mood can be a precursor to eventual depression as a disease. Our goal is how to predict the depressed mood of single household elderly from unobtrusive monitoring of their daily life. We have selected a wearable band with multiple sensors for monitoring elderly people. Depression questionnaire has been surveyed periodically to be used as the labels. Instead of working with depression patients, we recruited 14 single household elderly people from a nearby community. The wearable band provided daily activity and biometric data for 71 days. From the data, we generate a depressed mood prediction model. Multiple features from the collected sensor data are exploited for model generation. One general model is generated to be used as the baseline for the initial model deployment. Personal models are also generated for model refinement. The general model has a high recall of 80% in an MLP model. Individual models achieved an average recall of 82.7%. In this study, we have demonstrated that we can generate depressed mood prediction models with data collected from real daily living. Our work has shown the feasibility of using a wearable band as an unobtrusive depression monitoring sensor even for elderly people.Entities:
Keywords: depressed mood; elderly depression; unobtrusive monitoring; wearable band
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684797 PMCID: PMC9185362 DOI: 10.3390/s22114174
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Summary of Related Works.
| Devices/Sensors | Privacy Level | Type of Subjects | Analysis Scale | Performance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Total # | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | Wearable device (E4 wearable band), Smartphone | Low | Patients (20–73 years old) | 12 | Estimating modified survey scores | Root mean squared error 2.8 |
| [ | Pressure, Electrical, Contact Sensors | Low | Patients (All ages) | 340 | Comparing between different conditions | Adjusted odd ratio 0.85 |
| [ | Audio | Low | About half of the Patients included (23–69 years old) | 59 | 2 Classes | Recall 69.5% to 71.0% |
| [ | Wearable Device (E4 wearable band), Smartphone | Low | Patients (19–73 years old) | 31 | Estimating survey scores | Mean Absolute Error 3.88 to 4.74 |
| [ | Wearable device, ACC, HR, Skin temp., Ultraviolet light exposure | High | Patients (Aged 20 and above) | 45 | 2 Classes | Accuracy 74%, Sensitivity 66%, Specificity 81% |
| [ | Smartphone, HRV | Low | Non patients (24–68 years old) | 60 | 2 Depression, Anxiety, Stress | Test Statistic Values (r-value, |
Figure 1The model generation process proceeds sequentially from (a) to (d). (a) refers to collected biometric sensor data and questionnaire data. In (b), it refers to the pre-processing of the data collected in (a). The 3-axis accelerometer sensor data, BVP data, and questionnaire data, which are raw data of each sensor, are applicable. In (c), two types of features are extracted from data that has undergone pre-processing. These include features related to depression symptoms and statistical features. The general model and the personal model are generated from features and modified labels as shown in (d).
Correlation between Sensor Data and Depression Symptoms.
| Sensor | E4 Wearable Band | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG | ACC | EDA | TEMP | |
|
|
Heart Rate Time Domain features Frequency Domain features |
X, Y, Z axis statistic features Moving, Stationary states |
Skin activity statistic features |
Temperature statistic features |
|
|
Depressed Mood |
Fatigue or Loss of energy |
Thoughts of death or suicidal ideation |
Change in weight or appetite |
Figure 2Weekly Ratio of Participants between Normal/Mild Depression Class.
Figure 3Results of SGDS-K Score for All Participants.
Figure 4Results of Weekly PHQ-9 Score for All Participants.
Results of General Model with SMOTE.
| Model | Accuracy | Recall | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 67.0 | 80.0 | 61.0 |
|
| 57.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 |
|
| 62.0 | 40.0 | 36.0 |
|
| 66.0 | 43.0 | 43.0 |
|
| 66.0 | 47.0 | 45.0 |
|
| 59.0 | 30.0 | 26.0 |
|
| 71.0 | 72.0 | 61.0 |
|
| 69.0 | 78.0 | 61.0 |
Personal Model Results.
| Subj. ID | ACC-Only | PPG-Only | ACC and PPG | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuray | F1 Score | Recall | Accuray | F1 Score | Recall | Accuray | F1 Score | Recall | |
|
| 68.1 | 84.2 | 80.6 | 43.1 | 36.5 | 47.2 | 55.6 | 46.7 | 72.2 |
|
| 66.7 | 64.8 | 80.0 | 66.7 | 61.8 | 50.0 | 69.4 | 69.0 | 55.6 |
|
| 72.5 | 78.5 | 85.0 | 54.2 | 53.8 | 60.0 | 72.5 | 78.5 | 85.0 |
|
| 90.1 | 84.6 | 94.4 | 84.5 | 88.6 | 89.7 | 79.8 | 84.3 | 95.2 |
|
| 66.3 | 71.7 | 73.8 | 75.8 | 74.5 | 77.8 | 76.6 | 78.0 | 80.2 |
|
| 84.7 | 82.1 | 91.7 | 68.1 | 51.9 | 77.8 | 77.8 | 91.7 | 100 |
|
| 79.2 | 82.2 | 79.2 | 72.9 | 79.5 | 91.7 | 81.2 | 81.2 | 87.5 |
|
| 94.6 | 93.3 | 93.0 | 82.8 | 85.9 | 85.9 | 89.8 | 89.8 | 93.3 |
|
| 57.5 | 51.9 | 50.0 | 57.5 | 64.7 | 73.3 | 52.5 | 56.7 | 56.7 |
|
| 62.7 | 65.8 | 71.4 | 65.5 | 56.6 | 60.3 | 70.6 | 64.2 | 66.7 |
|
| 94.2 | 87.8 | 100 | 84.7 | 83.6 | 88.9 | 94.2 | 94.3 | 96.3 |
|
| 78.2 | 70.0 | 76.2 | 77.8 | 74.2 | 65.1 | 80.6 | 74.5 | 75.4 |
|
| 80.6 | 95.2 | 100 | 80.6 | 88.6 | 100 | 91.7 | 95.2 | 100 |
|
| 76.6 | 77.9 | 82.7 | 70.3 | 69.2 | 74.4 | 76.3 | 77.2 | 78.5 |