Increasing Physical Activity Amongst Overweight and Obese Cancer Survivors Using an Alexa-Based Intelligent Agent for Patient Coaching: Protocol for the Physical Activity by Technology Help (PATH) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has established health benefits, but motivation and adherence remain challenging. OBJECTIVE: We designed and launched a three-arm randomized trial to test artificial intelligence technology solutions to increase daily physical activity in cancer survivors. METHODS: A single-center, three-arm randomized clinical trial with an allocation ration of 1:1:1: (A) control, in which participants are provided written materials about the benefits of physical activity; (B) text intervention, where participants receive daily motivation from a fully automated, data-driven algorithmic text message via mobile phone (Coachtext); and (C) Voice Assist intervention, where participants are provided with an in-home on demand autonomous Intelligent Agent using data driven Interactive Digital Voice Assist on the Amazon Alexa/Echo (MyCoach). RESULTS: The study runs for 5 weeks: a one-week run-in to establish baseline, followed by 4 weeks of intervention. Data for study outcomes is collected automatically through a wearable sensor, and data are transferred in real-time to the study server. The recruitment goal is 42 participants, 14 in each arm. Electronic health records are used to prescreen candidates, with 39 participants recruited to date. DISCUSSION: This study aims to investigate the effects of different types of intelligent technology solutions on promoting physical activity in cancer survivors. This innovative approach can easily be expanded and customized to other interventions. Early lessons from our initial participants are helping us develop additional advanced solutions to improve health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered on July 10, 2017 at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212079; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03212079 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wgvqjTji).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".