A novel approach to anxiety level prediction using small sets of judgment and survey variables.

Anxiety, 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.

Crowdsourcing with the drift diffusion model of decision making.

Crowdsourcing involves the use of annotated labels with unknown reliability to estimate ground truth labels in datasets. A common task in crowdsourcing involves estimating reliabilities of annotators (such as through the sensitivities and specificities of annotators in the binary label setting). In the literature, beta or dirichlet distributions are typically imposed as priors on annotator reliability. In this study, we investigated the use of a neuroscientifically validated model of decision making, known as the drift-diffusion model, as a prior on the annotator labeling process. Two experiments were conducted on synthetically generated data with non-linear (sinusoidal) decision boundaries. Variational inference was used to predict ground truth labels and annotator related parameters. Our method performed similarly to a state-of-the-art technique (SVGPCR) in prediction of crowdsourced data labels and prediction through a crowdsourced-generated Gaussian process classifier. By relying on a neuroscientifically validated model of decision making to model annotator behavior, our technique opens the avenue of predicting neuroscientific biomarkers of annotators, expanding the scope of what may be learnt about annotators in crowdsourcing tasks.

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many chose to forgo vaccination, raising questions about the psychology underlying how judgment affects these choices. Research shows that reward and aversion judgments are important for vaccination choice; however, no studies have integrated such cognitive science with machine learning to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the predictive power of a small but interpretable set of judgment variables using 3 machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake and interpret what profile of judgment variables was important for prediction. METHODS: We surveyed 3476 adults across the United States in December 2021. Participants answered demographic, COVID-19 vaccine uptake (ie, whether participants were fully vaccinated), and COVID-19 precaution questions. Participants also completed a picture-rating task using images from the International Affective Picture System. Images were rated on a Likert-type scale to calibrate the degree of liking and disliking. Ratings were computationally modeled using relative preference theory to produce a set of graphs for each participant (minimum R2>0.8). In total, 15 judgment features were extracted from these graphs, 2 being analogous to risk and loss aversion from behavioral economics. These judgment variables, along with demographics, were compared between those who were fully vaccinated and those who were not. In total, 3 machine learning approaches (random forest, balanced random forest [BRF], and logistic regression) were used to test how well judgment, demographic, and COVID-19 precaution variables predicted vaccine uptake. Mediation and moderation were implemented to assess statistical mechanisms underlying successful prediction. RESULTS: Age, income, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, educational level, and sex differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square P<.001). Most judgment variables also differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum P<.05). A similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was achieved by the 3 machine learning frameworks, although random forest and logistic regression produced specificities between 30% and 38% (vs 74.2% for BRF), indicating a lower performance in predicting unvaccinated participants. BRF achieved high precision (87.8%) and AUROC (79%) with moderate to high accuracy (70.8%) and balanced recall (69.6%) and specificity (74.2%). It should be noted that, for BRF, the negative predictive value was <50% despite good specificity. For BRF and random forest, 63% to 75% of the feature importance came from the 15 judgment variables. Furthermore, age, income, and educational level mediated relationships between judgment variables and vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the underlying importance of judgment variables for vaccine choice and uptake, suggesting that vaccine education and messaging might target varying judgment profiles to improve uptake. These methods could also be used to aid vaccine rollouts and health care preparedness by providing location-specific details (eg, identifying areas that may experience low vaccination and high hospitalization).

The Relationship Between a History of High-risk and Destructive Behaviors and COVID-19 Infection: Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened mental health concerns, but the temporal relationship between mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection has not yet been investigated. Specifically, psychological issues, violent behaviors, and substance use were reported more during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether a prepandemic history of these conditions increases an individual's susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to better understand the psychological risks underlying COVID-19, as it is important to investigate how destructive and risky behaviors may increase a person's susceptibility to COVID-19. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed data from a survey of 366 adults across the United States (aged 18 to 70 years); this survey was administered between February and March of 2021. The participants were asked to complete the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener (GAIN-SS) questionnaire, which indicates an individual's history of high-risk and destructive behaviors and likelihood of meeting diagnostic criteria. The GAIN-SS includes 7 questions related to externalizing behaviors, 8 related to substance use, and 5 related to crime and violence; responses were given on a temporal scale. The participants were also asked whether they ever tested positive for COVID-19 and whether they ever received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. GAIN-SS responses were compared between those who reported and those who did not report COVID-19 to determine if those who reported COVID-19 also reported GAIN-SS behaviors (Wilcoxon rank sum test, α=.05). In total, 3 hypotheses surrounding the temporal relationships between the recency of GAIN-SS behaviors and COVID-19 infection were tested using proportion tests (α=.05). GAIN-SS behaviors that significantly differed (proportion tests, α=.05) between COVID-19 responses were included as independent variables in multivariable logistic regression models with iterative downsampling. This was performed to assess how well a history of GAIN-SS behaviors statistically discriminated between those who reported and those who did not report COVID-19. RESULTS: Those who reported COVID-19 more frequently indicated past GAIN-SS behaviors (Q<0.05). Furthermore, the proportion of those who reported COVID-19 was higher (Q<0.05) among those who reported a history of GAIN-SS behaviors; specifically, gambling and selling drugs were common across the 3 proportion tests. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that GAIN-SS behaviors, particularly gambling, selling drugs, and attention problems, accurately modeled self-reported COVID-19, with model accuracies ranging from 77.42% to 99.55%. That is, those who exhibited destructive and high-risk behaviors before and during the pandemic could be discriminated from those who did not exhibit these behaviors when modeling self-reported COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study provides insights into how a history of destructive and risky behaviors influences infection susceptibility, offering possible explanations for why some persons may be more susceptible to COVID-19, potentially in relation to reduced adherence to prevention guidelines or not seeking vaccination.

Anxiety, Post-COVID-19 Syndrome-Related Depression, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in COVID-19 Survivors: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Although the mental health impacts of COVID-19 on the general population have been well studied, studies of the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on infected individuals are relatively new. To date, depression, anxiety, and neurological symptoms associated with post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) have been observed in the months following COVID-19 recovery. Suicidal thoughts and behavior (STB) have also been preliminarily proposed as sequelae of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We asked 3 questions. First, do participants reporting a history of COVID-19 diagnosis or a close relative having severe COVID-19 symptoms score higher on depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) or state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Index) screens than those who do not? Second, do participants reporting a COVID-19 diagnosis score higher on PCS-related PHQ-9 items? Third, do participants reporting a COVID-19 diagnosis or a close relative having severe COVID-19 symptoms score higher in STB before, during, or after the first year of the pandemic? METHODS: This preliminary study analyzed responses to a COVID-19 and mental health questionnaire obtained from a US population sample, whose data were collected between February 2021 and March 2021. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to detect differences in the medians of the total PHQ-9 scores, PHQ-9 component scores, and several STB scores between participants claiming a past clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 and those denying one, as well as between participants claiming severe COVID-19 symptoms in a close relative and those denying them. Where significant differences existed, we created linear regression models to predict the scores based on COVID-19 response as well as demographics to identify potential confounding factors in the Mann-Whitney relationships. Moreover, for STB scores, which corresponded to 5 questions asking about 3 different time intervals (i.e., past 1 year or more, past 1 month to 1 year, and past 1 month), we developed repeated-measures ANOVAs to determine whether scores tended to vary over time. RESULTS: We found greater total depression (PHQ-9) and state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Index) scores in those with COVID-19 history than those without (Bonferroni P=.001 and Bonferroni P=.004) despite a similar history of diagnosed depression and anxiety. Greater scores were noted for a subset of depression symptoms (PHQ-9 items) that overlapped with the symptoms of PCS (all Bonferroni Ps<.05). Moreover, we found greater overall STB scores in those with COVID-19 history, equally in time windows preceding, during, and proceeding infection (all Bonferroni Ps<.05). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm previous studies linking depression and anxiety diagnoses to COVID-19 recovery. Moreover, our findings suggest that depression diagnoses associated with COVID-19 history relate to PCS symptoms, and that STB associated with COVID-19 in some cases precede infection.

The Prevalence of Psychotic Symptoms, Violent Ideation, and Disruptive Behavior in a Population With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 disease results from infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to produce a range of mild to severe physical, neurological, and mental health symptoms. The COVID-19 pandemic has indirectly caused significant emotional distress, triggering the emergence of mental health symptoms in individuals who were not previously affected or exacerbating symptoms in those with existing mental health conditions. Emotional distress and certain mental health conditions can lead to violent ideation and disruptive behavior, including aggression, threatening acts, deliberate harm toward other people or animals, and inattention to or noncompliance with education or workplace rules. Of the many mental health conditions that can be associated with violent ideation and disruptive behavior, psychosis can evidence greater vulnerability to unpredictable changes and being at a greater risk for them. Individuals with psychosis can also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19 disease. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether violent ideation, disruptive behavior, or psychotic symptoms were more prevalent in a population with COVID-19 and did not precede the pandemic. METHODS: In this preliminary study, we analyzed questionnaire responses from a population sample (N=366), received between the end of February 2021 and the start of March 2021 (1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic), regarding COVID-19 illness, violent ideation, disruptive behavior, and psychotic symptoms. Using the Wilcoxon rank sum test followed by multiple comparisons correction, we compared the self-reported frequency of these variables for 3 time windows related to the past 1 month, past 1 month to 1 year, and >1 year ago among the distributions of people who answered whether they tested positive or were diagnosed with COVID-19 by a clinician. We also used multivariable logistic regression with iterative resampling to investigate the relationship between these variables occurring >1 year ago (ie, before the pandemic) and the likelihood of contracting COVID-19. RESULTS: We observed a significantly higher frequency of self-reported violent ideation, disruptive behavior, and psychotic symptoms, for all 3 time windows of people who tested positive or were diagnosed with COVID-19 by a clinician. Using multivariable logistic regression, we observed 72% to 94% model accuracy for an increased incidence of COVID-19 in participants who reported violent ideation, disruptive behavior, or psychotic symptoms >1 year ago. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study found that people who reported a test or clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 also reported higher frequencies of violent ideation, disruptive behavior, or psychotic symptoms across multiple time windows, indicating that they were not likely to be the result of COVID-19. In parallel, participants who reported these behaviors >1 year ago (ie, before the pandemic) were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19, suggesting that violent ideation, disruptive behavior, in addition to psychotic symptoms, were associated with COVID-19 with an approximately 70% to 90% likelihood.