MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618294005 · doi:10.2196/resprot.7705

Development of a Modular Research Platform to Create Medical Observational Studies for Mobile Devices

2017· article· en· W2618294005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Zens, Birgit Grotejohann, Adrian Tassoni, Fabian Duttenhoefer, Norbert P. Südkamp, Philipp Niemeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studySoftware deploymentComputer scienceModular designScale (ratio)Resource (disambiguation)Data scienceHuman–computer interactionMedicineSoftware engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have proven to be a valuable resource in medical research, especially when performed on a large scale. Recently, mobile device-based observational studies have been discovered by an increasing number of researchers as a promising new source of information. However, the development and deployment of app-based studies is not trivial and requires profound programming skills. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to develop a modular online research platform that allows researchers to create medical studies for mobile devices without extensive programming skills. METHODS: The platform approach for a modular research platform consists of three major components. A Web-based platform forms the researchers' main workplace. This platform communicates via a shared database with a platform independent mobile app. Furthermore, a separate Web-based login platform for physicians and other health care professionals is outlined and completes the concept. RESULTS: A prototype of the research platform has been developed and is currently in beta testing. Simple questionnaire studies can be created within minutes and published for testing purposes. Screenshots of an example study are provided, and the general working principle is displayed. CONCLUSIONS: In this project, we have created a basis for a novel research platform. The necessity and implications of a modular approach were displayed and an outline for future development given. International researchers are invited and encouraged to participate in this ongoing project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.874
GPT teacher head0.774
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207