A Social Network Analysis of the Financial Links Backing Health and Fitness Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the major stakeholders in mobile health app development and to describe their financial relationships using social network analysis. METHODS: We conducted a structured content analysis of a purposive sample of prominent health and fitness apps available in November 2015 in the United States, Canada, and Australia. We conducted a social network analysis of apps' developers, investors, other funding sources, and content advisors to describe the financial relationships underpinning health app development. RESULTS: Prominent health and fitness apps are largely developed by private companies based in North America, with an average of 4.7 (SD = 5.5) financial relations, including founders, external investors, acquiring companies, and commercial partnerships. Network analysis revealed a core of 41 sampled apps connected to 415 other entities by 466 financial relations. This core largely comprised apps published by major technology, pharmaceutical, and fashion corporations. About one third of apps named advisors, many of whom had commercial affiliations. CONCLUSIONS: Public health needs to extend its scrutiny and advocacy beyond the health messages contained within apps to understanding commercial influences on health and, when necessary, challenging them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".