MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3148407079 · doi:10.2196/25895

Real-Time UV Measurement With a Sun Protection System for Warning Young Adults About Sunburn: Prospective Cohort Study

2021· article· en· W3148407079 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
June K. Robinson, Shiv Patel, Seung Yun Heo, Elizabeth Gray, Jaeman Lim, Kyeongha Kwon, Zach Christiansen, Jeffrey B. Model, Jacob Trueb, Anthony Banks, Mary Kwasny, John A. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSunburnMedicineSunbathingSkin cancerYoung adultSun protectionPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthCancerGerontologyDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is attributable to predisposing phenotypical factors, such as skin that easily sunburns and unprotected exposure to carcinogenic UV radiation. Reducing the proportion of young adults who get sunburned may reduce the incidence of melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. Advances in technology have enabled the delivery of real-time UV light exposure and content-relevant health interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility of young adults performing the following tasks daily: wearing a UV dosimeter, receiving text messages and real-time UV-B doses on their smartphone, and responding to daily web-based surveys about sunburn and sun protection. METHODS: Young adults aged 18-39 years (n=42) were recruited in the United States in June 2020 via social media. Participants received the UV Guard sun protection system, which consisted of a UV dosimeter and a smartphone app. During 3 consecutive periods, intervention intensity increased as follows: real-time UV-B dose; UV-B dose and daily behavioral facilitation text messages; and UV-B dose, goal setting, and daily text messages to support self-efficacy and self-regulation. Data were self-reported through daily web-based surveys for 28 days, and UV-B doses were transmitted to cloud-based storage. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 22 years (IQR 20, 29), and all patients had sun-sensitive skin. Sunburns were experienced during the study by fewer subjects (n=18) than those in the preceding 28 days (n=30). In July and August, the face was the most commonly sunburned area among 13 body locations; 52% (22/42) of sunburns occurred before the study and 45% (19/42) occurred during the study. The mean daily UV-B dose decreased during the 3 periods; however, this was not statistically significant. Young adults were most often exercising outdoors from 2 to 6 PM, walking from 10 AM to 6 PM, and relaxing from noon to 2 PM. Sunburn was most often experienced during exercise (odds ratio [OR] 5.65, 95% CI 1.60-6.10) and relaxation (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.03-4.67) relative to those that did not exercise or relax in each category. The self-reported exit survey indicated that participants felt that they spent less time outdoors this summer compared to the last summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic and work. In addition, 38% (16/42) of the participants changed their use of sun protection based on their app-reported UV exposure, and 48% (20/42) shifted the time they went outside to periods with less-intense UV exposure. A total of 79% (33/42) of the participants were willing to continue using the UV Guard system outside of a research setting. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept research, young adults demonstrated that they used the UV Guard system; however, optimization was needed. Although some sun protection behaviors changed, sunburn was not prevented in all participants, especially during outdoor exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03344796; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03344796.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicSkin Protection and Aging→French-language works237,207→