How Do Mobile Applications for Cancer Communicate About Their Privacy Practices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No previous research on cancer mobile applications (apps) has investigated issues associated with the data privacy of its consumers. The current chapter addressed this gap in the literature by assessing the content of online privacy policies of selected cancer mobile apps through applying a checklist and performing an in-depth critical analysis to determine how the apps communicated their privacy practices to end users. The results revealed that the privacy policies were mostly ambiguous, with content often presented in a complex manner and inadequate information on the ownership, use, disclosure, retention, and collection of end users' personal data. These results highlight the importance of improving the transparency of privacy practices in health and fitness cancer mobile apps to clearly and effectively communicate how end users' personal data are collected, stored, and shared. The chapter concludes with recommendations and discussion on practical implications for stakeholders like cancer app users, developers, policymakers, and clinicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".