We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Bipolar disorder (BD) is linked to circadian rhythm disruptions resulting in aberrant motor activity patterns. We aimed to explore whether motor activity alone, as assessed by longitudinal actigraphy, can be used to classify accurately BD patients and healthy controls (HCs) into their respective groups.
Methods
Ninety-day actigraphy records from 25 interepisode BD patients (ie, Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) < 15) and 25 sex- and age-matched HCs were used in order to identify latent actigraphic biomarkers capable of discriminating between BD patients and HCs. Mean values and time variations of a set of standard actigraphy features were analyzed and further validated using the random forest classifier.
Results
Using all actigraphy features, this method correctly assigned 88% (sensitivity = 85%, specificity = 91%) of BD patients and HCs to their respective group. The classification success may be confounded by differences in employment between BD patients and HCs. When motor activity features resistant to the employment status were used (the strongest feature being time variation of intradaily variability, Cohen’s d = 1.33), 79% of the subjects (sensitivity = 76%, specificity = 81%) were correctly classified.
Conclusion
A machine-learning actigraphy-based model was capable of distinguishing between interepisode BD patients and HCs solely on the basis of motor activity. The classification remained valid even when features influenced by employment status were omitted. The findings suggest that temporal variability of actigraphic parameters may provide discriminative power for differentiating between BD patients and HCs while being less affected by employment status.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.