↓ Skip to main content

The Detection of Malingering: A New Tool to Identify Made-Up Depression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Detection of Malingering: A New Tool to Identify Made-Up Depression
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Merylin Monaro, Andrea Toncini, Stefano Ferracuti, Gianmarco Tessari, Maria G. Vaccaro, Pasquale De Fazio, Giorgio Pigato, Tiziano Meneghel, Cristina Scarpazza, Giuseppe Sartori

Abstract

Major depression is a high-prevalence mental disease with major socio-economic impact, for both the direct and the indirect costs. Major depression symptoms can be faked or exaggerated in order to obtain economic compensation from insurance companies. Critically, depression is potentially easily malingered, as the symptoms that characterize this psychiatric disorder are not difficult to emulate. Although some tools to assess malingering of psychiatric conditions are already available, they are principally based on self-reporting and are thus easily faked. In this paper, we propose a new method to automatically detect the simulation of depression, which is based on the analysis of mouse movements while the patient is engaged in a double-choice computerized task, responding to simple and complex questions about depressive symptoms. This tool clearly has a key advantage over the other tools: the kinematic movement is not consciously controllable by the subjects, and thus it is almost impossible to deceive. Two groups of subjects were recruited for the study. The first one, which was used to train different machine-learning algorithms, comprises 60 subjects (20 depressed patients and 40 healthy volunteers); the second one, which was used to test the machine-learning models, comprises 27 subjects (9 depressed patients and 18 healthy volunteers). In both groups, the healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to the liars and truth-tellers group. Machine-learning models were trained on mouse dynamics features, which were collected during the subject response, and on the number of symptoms reported by participants. Statistical results demonstrated that individuals that malingered depression reported a higher number of depressive and non-depressive symptoms than depressed participants, whereas individuals suffering from depression took more time to perform the mouse-based tasks compared to both truth-tellers and liars. Machine-learning models reached a classification accuracy up to 96% in distinguishing liars from depressed patients and truth-tellers. Despite this, the data are not conclusive, as the accuracy of the algorithm has not been compared with the accuracy of the clinicians; this study presents a possible useful method that is worth further investigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Computer Science 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,023,545
of 26,503,921 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#618
of 13,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,189
of 345,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#19
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,503,921 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.