Using Virtual Social Networks for Case Finding in Clinical Studies: An Experiment from Adolescence, Brain, Cognition, and Diabetes Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the main usages of social networks in clinical studies is facilitating the process of sampling and case finding for scientists. The main focus of this study is on comparing two different methods of sampling through phone calls and using social network, for study purposes. METHODS: One of the researchers started calling 214 families of children with diabetes during 90 days. After this period, phone calls stopped, and the team started communicating with families through telegram, a virtual social network for 30 days. The number of children who participated in the study was evaluated. RESULTS: Although the telegram method was 60 days shorter than the phone call method, researchers found that the number of participants from telegram (17.6%) did not have any significant differences compared with the ones being phone called (12.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Using social networks can be suggested as a beneficial method for local researchers who look for easier sampling methods, winning their samples' trust, following up with the procedure, and an easy-access database.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".