Building Research Capacity: Results of a Feasibility Study Using a Novel mHealth Epidemiological Data Collection System Within a Gestational Diabetes Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public health researchers have traditionally relied on individual self-reporting when collecting much epidemiological surveillance data. Data acquisition can be costly, difficult to acquire, and the data often notoriously unreliable. An interesting option for the collection of individual health (or indicators of individual health) data is the personal smartphone. Smartphones are ubiquitous, and the required infrastructure is well-developed across Canada, including many remote areas. Researchers and health professionals are asking themselves how they might exploit increasing smartphone uptake for the purposes of data collection, hopefully leading to improved individual and public health. A novel smartphone-based epidemiological data collection and analysis system has been developed by faculty and students from the CEPHIL (Computational Epidemiology and Public Health Informatics) Lab in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan. A pilot feasibility study was then designed to examine possible relationships between smartphone sensor data, surveys and individual clinical data within a population of pregnant women. The study focused on the development of Gestational Diabetes (GDM), a transient condition during pregnancy, but with serious potential post-birth complications for both mother and child. The researchers questioned whether real-time smartphone data could improve the clinical management and outcomes of women at risk for developing GDM, enabling earlier treatment. The initial results from this small study did not show improved prediction of GDM, but did demonstrate that real-time individual health and sensor data may be readily collected and analyzed efficiently while maintaining confidentiality. Because the original version of the data collection software could only run on Android phones, this often meant the study participants were required to carry two phones, and this often meant the study phone was not carried, and therefore data not collected. The lessons learned will greatly inform future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.082 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".