The term “digital phenotype” refers to the digital footprint left by patient-environment interactions. It has potential for both research and clinical applications but challenges our conception of health care by opposing 2 distinct approaches to medicine: one centered on illness with the aim of classifying and curing disease, and the other centered on patients, their personal distress, and their lived experiences. In the context of mental health and psychiatry, the potential benefits of digital phenotyping include creating new avenues for treatment and enabling patients to take control of their own well-being. However, this comes at the cost of sacrificing the fundamental human element of psychotherapy, which is crucial to addressing patients’ distress. In this viewpoint paper, we discuss the advances rendered possible by digital phenotyping and highlight the risk that this technology may pose by partially excluding health care professionals from the diagnosis and therapeutic process, thereby foregoing an essential dimension of care. We conclude by setting out concrete recommendations on how to improve current digital phenotyping technology so that it can be harnessed to redefine mental health by empowering patients without alienating them.

Background: Recent discoveries in the fields of machine learning (ML), Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), computerized adaptive testing (CAT), digital phenotype, imaging, and biomarkers have brought about a new paradigm shift in medicine. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore psychiatrists’ perspectives on this paradigm through the prism of new clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). Our primary objective was to assess the acceptability of these new technologies. Our secondary objective was to characterize the factors affecting their acceptability. Methods: A sample of psychiatrists was recruited through a mailing list. Respondents completed a Web-based survey. A quantitative study with an original form of assessment involving the screenplay method was implemented involving 3 scenarios, each featuring 1 of the 3 support systems, namely, EMA and CAT, biosensors comprising a connected wristband-based digital phenotype, and an ML-based blood test or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We investigated 4 acceptability domains based on International Organization for Standardization and Nielsen models (usefulness, usability, reliability, and risk). Results: We recorded 515 observations. Regarding our primary objective, overall acceptability was moderate. MRI coupled with ML was considered to be the most useful system, and the connected wristband was considered the least. All the systems were described as risky (410/515, 79.6%). Regarding our secondary objective, acceptability was strongly influenced by socioepidemiological variables (professional culture), such as gender, age, and theoretical approach. Conclusions: This is the first study to assess psychiatrists’ views on new CDSSs. Data revealed moderate acceptability, but our analysis shows that this is more the result of the lack of knowledge about these new technologies rather than a strong rejection. Furthermore, we found strong correspondences between acceptability profiles and professional culture profiles. Many medical, forensics, and ethical issues were raised, including therapeutic relationship, data security, data storage, and privacy risk. It is essential for psychiatrists to receive training and become involved in the development of new technologies.

Background: New technologies are set to profoundly change the way we understand and manage psychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Developments in imaging and biomarkers, along with medical informatics, may well allow for better assessments and interventions in the future. Recent advances in the concept of digital phenotype, which involves using computerized measurement tools to capture the characteristics of a given psychiatric disorder, is one paradigmatic example. Objective: The impact of new technologies on health professionals’ practice in OCD care remains to be determined. Recent developments could disrupt not just their clinical practices, but also their beliefs, ethics, and representations, even going so far as to question their professional culture. This study aimed to conduct an extensive review of new technologies in OCD. Methods: We conducted the review by looking for titles in the PubMed database up to December 2017 that contained the following terms: [Obsessive] AND [Smartphone] OR [phone] OR [Internet] OR [Device] OR [Wearable] OR [Mobile] OR [Machine learning] OR [Artificial] OR [Biofeedback] OR [Neurofeedback] OR [Momentary] OR [Computerized] OR [Heart rate variability] OR [actigraphy] OR [actimetry] OR [digital] OR [virtual reality] OR [Tele] OR [video]. Results: We analyzed 364 articles, of which 62 were included. Our review was divided into 3 parts: prediction, assessment (including diagnosis, screening, and monitoring), and intervention. Conclusions: The review showed that the place of connected objects, machine learning, and remote monitoring has yet to be defined in OCD. Smartphone assessment apps and the Web Screening Questionnaire demonstrated good sensitivity and adequate specificity for detecting OCD symptoms when compared with a full-length structured clinical interview. The ecological momentary assessment procedure may also represent a worthy addition to the current suite of assessment tools. In the field of intervention, CBT supported by smartphone, internet, or computer may not be more effective than that delivered by a qualified practitioner, but it is easy to use, well accepted by patients, reproducible, and cost-effective. Finally, new technologies are enabling the development of new therapies, including biofeedback and virtual reality, which focus on the learning of coping skills. For them to be used, these tools must be properly explained and tailored to individual physician and patient profiles.

Background: While speech analysis holds promise for mental health assessment, research often focuses on single symptoms, despite symptom co-occurrences and interactions. In addition, predictive models in mental health do not properly assess the limitations of speech-based systems, such as uncertainty, or fairness for a safe clinical deployment. Objective: We investigated the predictive potential of mobile-collected speech data for detecting and estimating depression, anxiety, fatigue, and insomnia, focusing on other factors than mere accuracy, in the general population. Methods: We included 865 healthy adults and recorded their answers regarding their perceived mental and sleep states. We asked how they felt and if they had slept well lately. Clinically validated questionnaires measuring depression, anxiety, insomnia, and fatigue severity were also used. We developed a novel speech and machine learning pipeline involving voice activity detection, feature extraction, and model training. We automatically modeled speech with pretrained deep learning models that were pretrained on a large, open, and free database, and we selected the best one on the validation set. Based on the best speech modeling approach, clinical threshold detection, individual score prediction, model uncertainty estimation, and performance fairness across demographics (age, sex, and education) were evaluated. We used a train-validation-test split for all evaluations: to develop our models, select the best ones, and assess the generalizability of held-out data. Results: The best model was Whisper M with a max pooling and oversampling method. Our methods achieved good detection performance for all symptoms, depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: area under the curve [AUC]=0.76; F1-score=0.49 and Beck Depression Inventory: AUC=0.78; F1-score=0.65), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale: AUC=0.77; F1-score=0.50), insomnia (Athens Insomnia Scale: AUC=0.73; F1-score=0.62), and fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory total score: AUC=0.68; F1-score=0.88). The system performed well when it needed to abstain from making predictions, as demonstrated by low abstention rates in depression detection with the Beck Depression Inventory and fatigue, with risk-coverage AUCs below 0.4. Individual symptom scores were accurately predicted (correlations were all significant with Pearson strengths between 0.31 and 0.49). Fairness analysis revealed that models were consistent for sex (average disparity ratio [DR] 0.86, SD 0.13), to a lesser extent for education level (average DR 0.47, SD 0.30), and worse for age groups (average DR 0.33, SD 0.30). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the potential of speech-based systems for multifaceted mental health assessment in the general population, not only for detecting clinical thresholds but also for estimating their severity. Addressing fairness and incorporating uncertainty estimation with selective classification are key contributions that can enhance the clinical utility and responsible implementation of such systems.

High stake clinical choices in psychiatry can be impacted by external irrelevant factors. A strong understanding of the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms involved in clinical reasoning and decision-making is fundamental in improving healthcare quality. Indeed, the decision in clinical practice can be influenced by errors or approximations which can affect the diagnosis and, by extension, the prognosis: human factors are responsible for a significant proportion of medical errors, often of cognitive origin. Both patient’s and clinician’s cognitive biases can affect decision-making procedures at different time points. From the patient’s point of view, the quality of explicit symptoms and data reported to the psychiatrist might be affected by cognitive biases affecting attention, perception or memory. From the clinician’s point of view, a variety of reasoning and decision-making pitfalls might affect the interpretation of information provided by the patient. As personal technology becomes increasingly embedded in human lives, a new concept called digital phenotyping is based on the idea of collecting real-time markers of human behaviour in order to determine the ‘digital signature of a pathology’. Indeed, this strategy relies on the assumption that behaviours are ‘quantifiable’ from data extracted and analysed through connected tools (smartphone, digital sensors and wearable devices) to deduce an ‘e-semiology’. In this article, we postulate that implementing digital phenotyping could improve clinical reasoning and decision-making outcomes by mitigating the influence of patient’s and practitioner’s individual cognitive biases.

The use of digital technologies is constantly growing around the world. The wider-spread adoption of digital technologies and solutions in the daily clinical practice in psychiatry seems to be a question of when, not if. We propose a synthesis of the scientific literature on digital technologies in psychiatry and discuss the main aspects of its possible uses and interests in psychiatry according to three domains of influence that appeared to us: 1) assist and improve current care: digital psychiatry allows for more people to have access to care by simply being more accessible but also by being less stigmatized and more convenient; 2) develop new treatments: digital psychiatry allows for new treatments to be distributed via apps, and practical guidelines can reduce ethical challenges and increase the efficacy of digital tools; and 3) produce scientific and medical knowledge: digital technologies offer larger and more objective data collection, allowing for more detection and prevention of symptoms. Finally, ethical and efficacy issues remain, and some guidelines have been put forth on how to safely use these solutions and prepare for the future.