Comparison of a Collective Intelligence Tailored Messaging System on Smoking Cessation Between African American and White People Who Smoke: Quasi-Experimental Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Experience Recommender System for Persuasive Communication Tailoring (PERSPeCT) is a machine learning recommender system with a database of messages to motivate smoking cessation. PERSPeCT uses the collective intelligence of users (ie, preferences and feedback) and demographic and smoking profiles to select motivating messages. PERSPeCT may be more beneficial for tailoring content to minority groups influenced by complex, personally relevant factors. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate the use of PERSPeCT in African American people who smoke compared with white people who smoke. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared African American people who smoke with a historical cohort of white people who smoke, who both received up to 30 emailed tailored messages over 65 days. People who smoke rated the daily message in terms of perceived influence on quitting smoking for 30 days. Our primary analysis compared daily message ratings between the two groups using a t test. We used a logistic model to compare 30-day cessation between the two groups and adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: The study included 119 people who smoke (African Americans, 55/119; whites, 64/119). At baseline, African American people who smoke were significantly more likely to report allowing smoking in the home (P=.002); all other characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Daily mean ratings were higher for African American than white people who smoke on 26 of the 30 days (P<.001). Odds of quitting as measured by 30-day cessation were significantly higher for African Americans (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.04-5.53; P=.03) and did not change after adjusting for allowing smoking at home. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the potential of using a recommender system to personalize for African American people who smoke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02200432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02200432. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/jmir.6465.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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, 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".