Analyze a specific participant's longitudinal passive-sensing and psychological data in the GLOBEM digital depression research dataset. Use this skill whenever the task involves: analyzing a user's mental health or behavioral data from wearables/smartphones, generating QA pairs about behavioral/psychological changes over time, working with EMA, depression scores, activity, sleep, communication, location, or phone-usage data, or any user-profile analysis in the DDR/GLOBEM context.
Analyze a specific participant's longitudinal passive-sensing and psychological data in the GLOBEM digital depression research dataset. Use this skill whenever the task involves: analyzing a user's mental health or behavioral data from wearables/smartphones, generating QA pairs about behavioral/psychological changes over time, working with EMA, depression scores, activity, sleep, communication, location, or phone-usage data, or any user-profile analysis in the DDR/GLOBEM context.
DDR GLOBEM Participant Analysis
Task Overview
Analyze all available data for a specified participant (identified by pid, e.g., INS-W_011) and submit QA pairs covering their behavioral and psychological changes across the observation period. Aim for 15+ high-quality, distinct QA pairs covering every available data modality and multiple sub-dimensions within each modality.
Dataset Structure
All CSV files share the columns pid (participant ID) and date. Filter every file by the target pid.
Sensor files (92 days per participant, many NaN rows are normal):
activity_allday_raw.csv — daily step count, active/sedentary bout counts and durations
dep_endterm.csv — final depression label and BDI2 score
Schema tip: Use get_field_description(data_file="<filename>") for the six sensor CSV files. For ema.csv, dep_weekly.csv, pre.csv, post.csv, infer column meanings from names.
Known column pitfalls:
platform.csv uses column platform, not os
Home time: use barnett_hometime (not barnett_homelabel, which does not exist)
summary_rapids_* columns repeat the same period-wide value on every row — use intraday_rapids_* for daily variation
Analysis Workflow
1. Orient to the participant
import pandas as pd
pid = "INS-W_011"# replace with target
files = ["ema.csv", "dep_weekly.csv", "activity_allday_raw.csv",
"sleep_allday_raw.csv", "communication_allday_raw.csv",
"location_allday_raw.csv", "phone_usage_allday_raw.csv",
"connectivity_allday_raw.csv"]
for f in files:
df = pd.read_csv(f)
sub = df[df['pid'] == pid]
n_valid = sub.select_dtypes('number').notna().any(axis=1).sum()
print(f"{f}: {len(sub)} rows, {n_valid} with any numeric data")
2. Temporal segmentation for sensor data
Split the participant's non-NaN rows into early and late halves by date. This is the standard comparison unit for sensor modalities. Always dropna() on the target column first.
defearly_late(df, pid, value_col):
sub = df[df['pid'] == pid].copy()
sub['date'] = pd.to_datetime(sub['date'])
sub = sub.sort_values('date').dropna(subset=[value_col])
mid = len(sub) // 2
early = sub.iloc[:mid][value_col].mean()
late = sub.iloc[mid:][value_col].mean()
return early, late
For each modality, also compute weekday vs weekend means — this often reveals additional QA-worthy patterns.
Weekday vs weekend: For every modality with ≥10 weekday and ≥5 weekend valid days, compute means separately. Report if the difference is >15%.
Active/sedentary ratio: Compute the ratio of active bout duration (or count) to sedentary bout duration (or count) for early vs late periods. Even a small change in ratio can be a meaningful QA pair.
Call count vs duration dissociation: If outgoing call count increases but total duration decreases (or vice versa), this is a notable pattern (more frequent but shorter calls, or fewer but longer calls).
Phone count vs duration dissociation: Similarly, if unlock count drops but total duration rises, the user is having fewer but longer phone sessions — worth a dedicated QA pair.
Location diversity: Extract doryab_locationentropy (or barnett_siglocentropy) and doryab_numberlocationtransitions for early vs late. An increase signals more spatially diverse behavior; a decrease signals more routine.
Circadian routine score (barnett_circdnrtn, 0=chaotic, 1=perfectly consistent): Changes here indicate shifts in daily routine regularity.
Temporal anomalies with specific dates: After weekly aggregation, identify anomaly weeks (>2× median distance). Then examine individual dates within that week to pinpoint peak travel days with exact dates and magnitudes.
sub['week'] = pd.to_datetime(sub['date']).dt.isocalendar().week
weekly = sub.groupby('week')['barnett_disttravelled'].mean()
anomaly_weeks = weekly[weekly > weekly.median() * 2]
# Then drill into those weeks for the top datesfor wk in anomaly_weeks.index:
wk_days = sub[sub['week'] == wk].nlargest(3, 'barnett_disttravelled')
print(wk_days[['date', 'barnett_disttravelled']])
EMA spike analysis: Identify the dates with highest negative affect and examine what behavioral signals coincide (travel events, reduced sleep, reduced home time). Report specific dates and values.
Event-day behavioral comparison: When a travel anomaly is detected, compare sleep, phone usage, and other metrics on those specific days vs participant's overall average. This produces high-value cross-modal QA pairs.
Cross-modal correlations: When two streams have ≥10 shared observations, compute Pearson correlation.
merged = pd.merge(df_comm[['date','rapids_incoming_count']],
df_loc[['date','barnett_disttravelled']], on='date')
r = merged[['rapids_incoming_count','barnett_disttravelled']].corr().iloc[0,1]
Self-report vs behavioral discrepancies: When survey direction contradicts behavioral signal (e.g., social support worsens in surveys but outgoing calls increase), surface that tension explicitly.
Behavioral trajectory vs psychological trajectory comparison: If behavioral metrics (calls, mobility, phone use) increase while psychological metrics worsen (or vice versa), name this dissociation as a meta-pattern QA pair.
5. Formulate and submit QA pairs
Each QA pair must:
Ask about a specific behavioral or psychological dimension with a clear time reference
Include concrete numbers in the answer (mean values, direction and magnitude of change, scale names)
Describe the direction and magnitude using natural language ("increased substantially", "remained stable", "decreased modestly")
Remain factual — do not over-interpret causation
Submit with: submit_qa_pair(q="...", a="...")
Good QA pair examples (structure to emulate):
Q: "How did the user's negative affect change over the observation period?"
A: "It showed a moderate increase, rising from 8.44 in the early period to 10.56 in the later period."
Q: "How did the user's physical activity levels and sedentary behavior change between early and late periods?"
A: "Physical activity decreased modestly (steps: 10,884→9,249/day; -15%). Sedentary bout duration increased slightly while active bout duration fell, shifting the active-to-sedentary ratio from 0.19 to 0.16."
Q: "How did outgoing call frequency and duration change between early and late periods?"
A: "Outgoing calls increased from 1.24 to 3.67/day (+196%), but total duration increased more dramatically (from 58s to 305s mean/call), suggesting fewer but much longer conversations in the later period."
Q: "How did the user's mobility and phone usage differ between weekdays and weekends?"
A: "Weekend distance traveled averaged 162 km vs 23 km on weekdays, with home time decreasing by 2.2 hours. Phone usage also increased modestly on weekends (+4 unlocks/day)."
Q: "Was there any exceptional mobility event during the study?"
A: "Week 24 showed exceptional mobility with distance spiking to 176,804 m — approximately 5× the participant's median. Peak travel days occurred on May 24 (4.4M m) and May 27 (3.98M m), suggesting major long-distance travel."
Q: "Did the user's peak negative affect episodes coincide with any specific behavioral events?"
A: "Yes, the two highest negative affect days (May 20: 5.0, May 24: 8.0) coincided with the largest travel days (641 km and 4,428 km), suggesting travel-related stress during the high-mobility period."
Q: "How did the user's spatial behavior and routine patterns change between early and late periods?"
A: "Location entropy decreased from 0.28 to 0.21 nats suggesting less diverse location usage, circadian routine weakened from 0.62 to 0.50 indicating less consistent daily patterns, while location transitions increased from 2.34 to 5.00/day."
Q: "Is there a discrepancy between self-reported social support and behavioral communication patterns?"
A: "Yes: self-reported emotional social support decreased (giving: 14→8, receiving: 20→14), yet outgoing calls increased from 9.25 to 13.92/day, suggesting behavioral social engagement increased despite perceived support decline."
6. QA coverage checklist
Aim to cover all of these (skip only if data is entirely NaN):
EMA negative affect trajectory (early/late)
EMA spike analysis — specific high-affect dates and coinciding behaviors
Weekly depression status and severity (including BDI2 endterm)
Weekly depression/anxiety subscale trajectory
Pre-post psychological state (depression, anxiety/stress)
Pre-post social factors (loneliness, social support, social fit)