Log2Lose: Development and Lessons Learned From a Mobile Technology Weight Loss Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing financial incentives has gained popularity as a strategy to promote weight loss, but questions remain about how best to utilize them. A promising mobile health strategy provides users with near-real-time financial incentives based on both the process of weight loss (behavioral modification) and actual weight loss. To maximize the impact of this strategy, a methodology is needed to close the gap between the desired behavior and the financial incentive. Leveraging mobile health tools-such as mobile phone apps, cellular body weight scales that transmit data to physicians and researchers, and text messaging for instructions and encouragement-has the potential to close this gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the development of an innovative technology-based solution and lessons learned from a feasibility trial-Log2Lose-that encouraged individuals to lose weight by providing near-real-time financial incentives for weight loss and/or dietary self-monitoring. METHODS: for a 24-week weight loss trial. Participants received a behavioral intervention of biweekly, in-person group sessions and were instructed to log a minimum number of daily calories in MyFitnessPal and to step on the BodyTrace cellular scale at least twice per week. In a 2×2 design, participants were randomized into 4 groups to receive financial incentives for the following: (group 1) weekly weight loss and dietary self-monitoring, (group 2) dietary self-monitoring only, (group 3) weekly weight loss only, or (group 4) no financial incentives. Diet and weight data from the devices were obtained through application programming interfaces. Each week, we applied algorithms to participants' data to determine whether they qualified for a monetary incentive (groups 1-3). A text message notified these participants of whether they met weight loss and/or self-monitoring requirements to earn an incentive and the amount they earned or would have earned. The money was uploaded to a debit card. RESULTS: Our custom-engineered software platform analyzed data from multiple sources, collated and processed the data to send appropriate text messages automatically, and informed study staff of the appropriate incentives. We present lessons learned from the development of the software system and challenges encountered with technology, data transmission, and participants (eg, lost connections or delayed communication). CONCLUSIONS: With consistent and constant validation checks and a robust beta test run, the process of analyzing data and determining eligibility for weekly incentives can be mostly automated. We were able to accomplish this project within an academic health system, which required significant security and privacy safeguards. Our success demonstrates how this methodology of automated feedback loops can provide health interventions via mobile technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02691260; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02691260.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".