Utilizing Consumer Technology (Apple’s ResearchKit) for Medical Studies by Patients and Researchers: Proof of Concept of the Novel Platform REach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical research suffers from declining response rates, hampering the quest for answers to clinically relevant research questions. Furthermore, objective data on a number of important study variables, such as physical activity, sleep, and nutrition, are difficult to collect with the traditional methods of data collection. Reassuringly, current technological developments could overcome these limitations. In addition, they may enable research being established by patients themselves provided that they have access to a user-friendly platform. Using the features of Apple's ResearchKit, an informed consent procedure, questionnaire, linkage with HealthKit data, and "active tasks" may be administered through a publicly available app. However, ResearchKit requires programming skills, which many patients and researchers lack. Therefore, we developed a platform (REach) with drag and drop functionalities producing a ready-to-use code that can be embedded in existing or new apps. Participants in the pilot study were very satisfied with data collection through REach and measurement error was minimal. In the era of declining participation rates in observational studies and patient involvement, new methods of data collection, such as REach, are essential to ensure that clinically relevant research questions are validly answered. Due to linkage with HealthKit and active tasks, objective health data that are impossible to collect with the traditional methods of data collection can easily be collected.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".