Author:
Bari Sumra,Kim Byoung-Woo,Vike Nicole L.,Lalvani Shamal,Stefanopoulos Leandros,Maglaveras Nicos,Block Martin,Strawn Jeffrey,Katsaggelos Aggelos K.,Breiter Hans C.
Abstract
AbstractAnxiety, a condition characterized by intense fear and persistent worry, affects millions each year and, when severe, is distressing and functionally impairing. Numerous machine learning frameworks have been developed and tested to predict features of anxiety and anxiety traits. This study extended these approaches by using a small set of interpretable judgment variables (n = 15) and contextual variables (demographics, perceived loneliness, COVID-19 history) to (1) understand the relationships between these variables and (2) develop a framework to predict anxiety levels [derived from the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)]. This set of 15 judgment variables, including loss aversion and risk aversion, models biases in reward/aversion judgments extracted from an unsupervised, short (2–3 min) picture rating task (using the International Affective Picture System) that can be completed on a smartphone. The study cohort consisted of 3476 de-identified adult participants from across the United States who were recruited using an email survey database. Using a balanced Random Forest approach with these judgment and contextual variables, STAI-derived anxiety levels were predicted with up to 81% accuracy and 0.71 AUC ROC. Normalized Gini scores showed that the most important predictors (age, loneliness, household income, employment status) contributed a total of 29–31% of the cumulative relative importance and up to 61% was contributed by judgment variables. Mediation/moderation statistics revealed that the interactions between judgment and contextual variables appears to be important for accurately predicting anxiety levels. Median shifts in judgment variables described a behavioral profile for individuals with higher anxiety levels that was characterized by less resilience, more avoidance, and more indifference behavior. This study supports the hypothesis that distinct constellations of 15 interpretable judgment variables, along with contextual variables, could yield an efficient and highly scalable system for mental health assessment. These results contribute to our understanding of underlying psychological processes that are necessary to characterize what causes variance in anxiety conditions and its behaviors, which can impact treatment development and efficacy.
Funder
Office of Naval Research
College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Cincinnati, United States
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference113 articles.
1. CDC, FastStats: Mental Health. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/mental-health.htm (2021).
2. Ritchie, H. & Dattani, M. R. S. Mental Health - Our World in Data. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health#risk-factors-for-mental-health (2021).
3. G. 2019 M. D. C.-T. L. Psychiatry, undefined 2022, Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry 9, 137–150 (2022).
4. Chand, S. P. & Marwaha, R. Anxiety - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (StatPearls, 2021).
5. Beesdo, K., Pine, D. S., Lieb, R. & Wittchen, H. U. Incidence and risk patterns of anxiety and depressive disorders and categorization of generalized anxiety disorder. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 67, 47–57 (2010).