Transitioning a randomized controlled trial to a digital registry – experience from the TAILOR-PCI digital follow-up study on onboarding, engagement and geofencing consent rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction TAILOR-PCI is the largest cardiovascular genotype-based randomized trial (NCT#01742117) investigating whether genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy improves ischemic outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The TAILOR-PCI Digital Sub-Study tests the feasibility of extending original follow-up of 1 year to 2 years using state-of-the-art digital solutions. Deep phenotyping acquired during a clinical trial can be leveraged by extending follow-up in an efficient and cost-effective manner using digital technology. Purpose Our objective is to describe onboarding and engagement of participants initially recruited in a large, pragmatic, international, multi-center clinical trial to a digital registry. Methods TAILOR-PCI participants, within 23 months of their index PCI, were invited by letters containing a URL to the Digital Sub-Study website (http://tailorpci.eurekaplatform.org). These invitations were followed by phone calls, if no response to the letter, to determine reason for non-participation. A NIH-funded direct-to-participant digital research platform (the Eureka Research Platform) was used to onboard, consent and enroll participants for the digital follow-up. Participants were asked to answer health-related surveys at fixed intervals using the Eureka mobile app and desktop platform. To capture hospitalizations, participants could enable geofencing to allow background location tracking, which triggered surveys if a hospitalization was detected. Result(s) Letters were mailed to 893 of 929 eligible participants across 22 sites in the United States and Canada leading to 226 homepage visits and 118 registrations. There were 107 consents (12.0% of invited; mean age: 66.4±9.0; 19 females [18%]): 47 (44%) participants consented after the letter, 36 (34%) consented after the 1st call and 24 (22%) consented after a 2nd call. Among those who consented, 100 were eligible (7 did not have a smartphone) 81 downloaded the study mobile app and 73 agreed for geofencing (Figure 1). Among the 722 invited participants who were surveyed, 354 declined participation: due to lack of time (146; 20.2%), lack of smartphone (125; 17.3%), difficulty understanding (41; 5.7%), concern about using smartphone (34; 4.7%), concern of data privacy (14; 1.9%), concerns of location tracking (6; 0.8%) and other reasons (57; 7.9%). Conclusion Extended follow-up of a clinical trial using a digital platform is feasible but uptake in this study population was limited largely due to lack of time or a smartphone among participants. Based on data from other digital studies, uptake may also have been limited since digital follow-up consent was not incorporated at the time of consent for the main trial. Figure 1. Onboarding of the digital substudy Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Institute of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
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 | 0.117 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".