Adaptive learning algorithms to optimize mobile applications for behavioral health: guidelines for design decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Providing behavioral health interventions via smartphones allows these interventions to be adapted to the changing behavior, preferences, and needs of individuals. This can be achieved through reinforcement learning (RL), a sub-area of machine learning. However, many challenges could affect the effectiveness of these algorithms in the real world. We provide guidelines for decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using thematic analysis, we describe challenges, considerations, and solutions for algorithm design decisions in a collaboration between health services researchers, clinicians, and data scientists. We use the design process of an RL algorithm for a mobile health study "DIAMANTE" for increasing physical activity in underserved patients with diabetes and depression. Over the 1.5-year project, we kept track of the research process using collaborative cloud Google Documents, Whatsapp messenger, and video teleconferencing. We discussed, categorized, and coded critical challenges. We grouped challenges to create thematic topic process domains. RESULTS: Nine challenges emerged, which we divided into 3 major themes: 1. Choosing the model for decision-making, including appropriate contextual and reward variables; 2. Data handling/collection, such as how to deal with missing or incorrect data in real-time; 3. Weighing the algorithm performance vs effectiveness/implementation in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: The creation of effective behavioral health interventions does not depend only on final algorithm performance. Many decisions in the real world are necessary to formulate the design of problem parameters to which an algorithm is applied. Researchers must document and evaulate these considerations and decisions before and during the intervention period, to increase transparency, accountability, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03490253.
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 | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".