An Automated Text-Messaging Platform for Enhanced Retention and Data Collection in a Longitudinal Birth Cohort: Cohort Management Platform Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional methods for recruiting and maintaining contact with participants in cohort studies include print-based correspondence, which can be unidirectional, labor intensive, and slow. Leveraging technology can substantially enhance communication, maintain engagement of study participants in cohort studies, and facilitate data collection on a range of outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides an overview of the development process and design of a cohort management platform (CMP) used in the Newborn Epigenetic STudy (NEST), a large longitudinal birth cohort study. METHODS: The platform uses short message service (SMS) text messaging to facilitate interactive communication with participants; it also semiautomatically performs many recruitment and retention procedures typically completed by research assistants over the course of multiple study follow-up visits. RESULTS: Since February 2016, 302 participants have consented to enrollment in the platform and 162 have enrolled with active engagement in the system. Daily reminders are being used to help improve adherence to the study's accelerometer wear protocol. At the time of this report, 213 participants in our follow-up study who were also registered to use the CMP were eligible for the accelerometer protocol. Preliminary data show that texters (138/213, 64.8%), when compared to nontexters (75/213, 35.2%), had significantly longer average accelerometer-wearing hours (165.6 hours, SD 56.5, vs 145.3 hours, SD 58.5, P=.01) when instructed to wear the devices for 1 full week. CONCLUSIONS: This platform can serve as a model for enhancing communication and engagement with longitudinal study cohorts, especially those involved in studies assessing environmental exposures.
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 | 0.038 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".