Going beyond (electronic) patient-reported outcomes: harnessing the benefits of smart technology and ecological momentary assessment in cancer survivorship research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid developments in digital mobile and sensor technology have facilitated the active and passive collection of detailed, personalized data in increasingly affordable ways [1]. Researchers may be familiar with the daily diary, portable computers, or the pedometer for the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) [2] in cancer survivorship research [3]. Such methods, termed ecological momentary assessment (EMA), have evolved with technological advances, e.g., collecting data or providing interventions (ecological momentary intervention, EMI) via apps or devices such as smartphones [4]. These smart technology–adapted sEMA/sEMI methods are more widely used in affective disorders or addictive behavior research [5, 6] but are currently still under-utilized in cancer survivorship research. A recent scoping review on the use of active EMA among cancer survivors identified twelve articles published between 1993 and 2018 [7]. Most of the included studies in that review used portable computers. This commentary will discuss the utility of sEMA/sEMI in cancer survivorship research and call for action to advance this area of science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".