| Literature DB >> 36066938 |
Benoit-Marie Robaglia1, Alban Lejeune2, Michel Walter2,3, Sofian Berrouiguet2,4, Christophe Lemey2,3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a disease associated with high burden, and improvement in care is necessary. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been used to diagnose several medical conditions as well as psychiatric disorders. However, this technology requires large amounts of data to be efficient. Social media data could be used to improve diagnostic capabilities.Entities:
Keywords: AI; artificial intelligence; machine learning; neural network; psychiatric disorders; psychotic disorders; schizophrenia; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36066938 PMCID: PMC9490531 DOI: 10.2196/36986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 7.076
Figure 1PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart outlining the study selection process.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) quality scores of the included studies.
| Study | PRISMA quality scorea |
| Birnbaum et al [ | 31 |
| Kim et al [ | 31 |
| Birnbaum et al [ | 37 |
| Birnbaum et al [ | 36 |
| McManus et al [ | 29 |
| Bae et al [ | 36 |
| Mitchell et al [ | 29 |
aThe higher the score, the better the overall quality.
Information extracted from the included studies.
| Authors, year, and country | Overview and inclusion criteria | Objective | Method | Social media and AIa technology | Outcome | Main limitations |
| Birnbaum et al [ | Users with a self-disclosed diagnosis of schizophrenia on Twitter between 2012 and 2016. Authors randomly selected 671 users diagnosed with schizophrenia from the primary data set. The control group comprised a random sample of Twitter users collected from individuals without any mentions of “schizophrenia” or “psychosis” in their timeline. | To explore the utility of social media as a viable diagnostic tool in identifying individuals with schizophrenia | Twitter profiles from the training data set were reviewed by 2 physicians to determine the probability of belonging to a patient with schizophrenia. The users were then classified into 3 groups: “yes,” “maybe,” or “no.” The machine learning model was then tested on unseen data of 100 users and its results were compared to those of the 2 physicians. | Twitter. Several algorithms including the Gaussian naïve Bayes (NB), random forest (RF), logistic regression (LR), and support vector machine (SVM) were trained. The best performing algorithm on cross-validation was selected (RF) using 10-fold-cross-validation. | RF yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88. | The research team only had access to publicly available Twitter profiles. The clinical diagnosis of the included users was unknown. |
| Kim et al [ | Data from 228,060 users with 488,472 posts from January 2017 to December 2018 were employed for the analysis. | Aimed to answer the following question: Can we identify whether a user's social media post can be associated with a mental illness? | Collection of post data on mental health–related subreddit groups. The study collected information from 248,537 users, who wrote 633,385 posts in the 7 subreddits. After removal of deleted users and posts, 488,472 posts were analyzed. Authors created 6 models for each mental disorder. Each model was created with the posts of the associated subreddit group. | Reddit. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and convolutional neural network (CNN) were employed. A dropout rate of 0.25 was used to prevent overfitting issues. | In the schizophrenia subreddit (r/schizophrenia), accuracies of XGBoost and CNN were 86.75% and 94.33%, respectively. | The clinical diagnosis of included subjects was unknown. |
| Birnbaum et al [ | Participants aged 15 to 35 years diagnosed with a primary psychotic disorder were screened for eligibility. Recruitment occurred between March 2016 and December 2018, and 51 of the included participants had a recent onset of psychosis. | To identify and predict early relapse warning signs in social media activity collected from a cohort of individuals receiving psychiatric care for schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders | The authors collected 52,815 Facebook posts across 51 participants with a recent onset of psychosis and applied anomaly detection to explore linguistic and behavioral changes associated with psychotic relapse. | Facebook. Three 1-class SVM models for 3 different data configurations (3 different time periods: 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months). The 1-month period showed the highest specificity, which led to an ensemble 1-class SVM algorithm. | The ensemble model had the highest specificity (0.71) but low sensitivity (0.38). The 3-month model had good sensitivity (0.9) but low specificity (0.04). | Monthly periods of relative health and relative illness were characterized. The illness trajectory of psychotic disorder does not fall only into 2 distinct categories, as the symptoms can fluctuate over time. |
| Birnbaum et al [ | A total of 3,404,959 Facebook messages and 142,390 images across 223 participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), mood disorders (MD), and healthy volunteers (HV) were collected. Participants aged between 15 and 35 years were recruited from Northwell Health’s psychiatry department. | To evaluate whether it was possible to distinguish among SSD, MD, and HV based on Facebook data alone. | The authors analyzed features uploaded up to 18 months before the first hospitalization using machine learning and built classifiers that distinguished SSD and MD from HV as well as SSD from MD. | Facebook. RF and 5-fold cross-validation were used. | Classification achieved AUC values of 0.77 (HV vs MD), 0.76 (HV vs SSD), and 0.72 (SSD vs MD). | Data from Facebook were retrospectively collected. |
| McManus et al [ | The cohort contained Twitter users who self-identified as having schizophrenia (cases) and users who did not self-identify as having any mental disorder (controls), with 96 cases and 200 controls. A user was defined as a case if 2 or more of the following held true: The user self-identifies in the user description; the user self-identifies in their status updates; the user follows @schizotribe, a known Twitter community of users with schizophrenia. | To distinguish individuals with schizophrenia from control individuals using Twitter data | To distinguish Twitter users with schizophrenia from controls, the authors extracted a set of features from each user's profile and posting history (28 numerical features). | Twitter. Several models: NB, artificial neural networks (ANNs), and SVMs. 5-fold cross validation on the training data. In addition to the raw feature vectors, the authors tested 2 transformations of the feature vectors for each of the models: log scaling of the delay between tweets and principal component analysis (PCA). | The best performing model was an SVM with PCA-transformed features (accuracy of 0.893). The 2 best performing models based on the F1 score involved PCA-transformed features. | Users self-identified as patients with schizophrenia. |
| Bae et al [ | A large corpus of social media posts was collected from web-based Reddit subcommunities for schizophrenia (n= 13,156) and control groups (n=247,569) comprising non-mental health–related subreddits (fitness, jokes, meditation, parenting, relationships, and teaching). | To determine whether machine learning could be effectively used to detect signs of schizophrenia in social media users by analyzing their social media texts | Authors collected posts from subreddit. They only included original posts and excluded the comments. They collected titles and bodies of posts along with user IDs. This resulted in 60,009 original schizophrenia posts from 16,462 users as well as 425,341 posts of the control group from 248,934 users. | Reddit. Posts from the control group were randomly downsampled to create a balanced data set (n= 13,156 posts for each group). The authors evaluated 4 different algorithms, namely SVM, LR, NB, and RF, with 10-fold cross-validation. | AUC values were as follows: RF 0.97, SVM 0.91, LR 0.9, and NB 0.87 | The authors do not have evidence that users of r/schizophrenia are clinically diagnosed. |
| Mitchell et al [ | A corpus of users diagnosed with schizophrenia was collected from publicly available Twitter data, including 174 users with an apparently genuine self-stated diagnosis of a schizophrenia-related condition. Random Twitter users were included as the control, and there were equal numbers of users with schizophrenia and community controls. | To examine how linguistic signals may aid in identifying and getting help to people with schizophrenia | Each self-stated diagnosis included in this study was examined by an author to verify that it appeared to be a real statement of a schizophrenia diagnosis, excluding jokes, quotes, or disingenuous statements. For each user, the authors obtained a set of their public Twitter posts via the Twitter application programming interface, collecting up to 3200 tweets. | Twitter. The authors used 10-fold cross-validation and 2 machine learning methods, namely SVM and maximum entropy. | The SVM model reached an 82.3% accuracy. | Clinical diagnosis was unknown. |
aAI: artificial intelligence.
Features used in the included studies.
| Authors, year, and country | Features |
| Birnbaum et al [ | The authors employed feature scaling to standardize the range of features. The LIWCa features were within a normalized range of 0 to 1. The n-gram features represented frequency counts that required standardization. The min-max rescaling technique was used to scale the n-gram features to the range of 0 to 1. They employed feature selection methods to eliminate noisy features. The filter method was used where features are selected on the basis of their scores in various statistical tests for their correlation with the outcome variable. Adopting the ANOVA F test reduced the feature space from 550 features to k – best features (where k=350) by removing noisy and redundant features. |
| Kim et al [ | The natural language toolkit was implemented in Python (Python Software Foundation) to tokenize users’ posts and filter frequently employed words (stop words). Porter stemmer (a tool used to explore word meaning and source) was employed on the tokenized words to convert a word to its root meaning and to decrease the number of word corpora. |
| Birnbaum et al [ | Facebook timeline data grounded in the symptomatic and functional impairments associated with psychotic disorders were used. These include 3 types of features. The first was word usage and psycholinguistic attributes related to affective, social, and personal experiences. The second included linguistic structural attributes, such as complexity, readability, and repeatability related to thought organization and cognitive abilities. The third comprised web-based activities relating to social functioning and diurnal patterns (friending, posting, and check-ins). |
| Birnbaum et al [ | Image and linguistic features were used. |
| McManus et al [ | Features for describing emoticon use and schizophrenia-related words were used. The authors used the natural language toolkit in Python to perform tokenization and lemmatization, before extracting textual features and NumPy for generating the final numeric feature vectors. The final 28 numerical features included the number of Twitter followers, number of followed users, proportion of tweets using schizophrenia-related words, emoticon usage, posting time of day, and posting rate. Two transformations of the feature vectors for each of the models were used: log scaling of the delay between tweets and principal component analysis. |
| Bae et al [ | The linguistic features were extracted using the LIWC package and the |
| Mitchell et al [ | All natural language processing features were either automatically constructed or unsupervised, meaning that no manual annotation is required to create them. It is important to note that although these features were inspired by the literature on schizophrenia, they were not direct correlates of standard schizophrenia markers. The authors used the following methods to extract features: perplexity (ppl), Brown-Cluster Dist, LIWC, CLMb, LIWC+CLM, LDAc Topic Dist (TDist), CLM+TDist+BDist+ppl, CLM+TDist, and LIWC+TDist. The authors used the LIWC approach to map the words to psychological concepts as well as open-vocabulary approaches such as LDA, Brown clustering, CLM, or perplexity in order to extract features from the corpus in an unsupervised manner. In particular, the LDA algorithm learns a probability distribution over topics for each document. The Brown clustering is a hierarchical clustering algorithm that groups words that occur in similar contexts. Regarding the CLM method, the idea is to assign a probability to a sequence of words (n-grams). In the paper, the authors used a sequence of 5 characters (5-grams). Finally, perplexity is a measurement of how predictable the language is. We expect a high perplexity score for a user using a noncoherent language. |
aLIWC: linguistic inquiry and word count.
bCLM: character language model.
cLDA: latent Dirichlet allocation.
Performance of the different algorithms in terms of the area under the curve.
| Study | Support vector machine | Random forest | Logistic regression | Naïve Bayes |
| Birnbaum et al [ | —a | 0.88 | — | — |
| Birnbaum et al [ | — | 0.76 | — | — |
| Bae et al [ | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.87 |
aNot applicable.
Performance of the different algorithms in terms of accuracy and sensitivity/specificity.
| Study | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity/specificity (%) |
| Birnbaum et al [ | 81 (RFa) | —b |
| Kim et al [ | 86.75 (XGBc), 94.33 (CNNd) | — |
| Birnbaum et al [ | — | 38/71, 90/40 (SVMe) |
| McManus et al [ | 89.3 (SVM) | — |
| Bae et al [ | 86 (NBf), 89 (LRg), 91 (SVM), 96 (RF) | — |
| Mitchell et al [ | 82.3 (SVM) | — |
aRF: random forest.
bNot applicable.
cXGB: extreme gradient boosting.
dCNN: convolutional neural network.
eSVM: support vector machine.
fNB: naïve Bayes.
gLR: logistic regression.