Going remote: Implementing digital research methods at an academic medical center during COVID-19
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract COVID-19 has forced medical research institutions to conduct clinical research remotely. Here, we describe how a university’s mHealth Research Core helped facilitate the shift to remote research during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019 (pre-pandemic), we conducted stakeholder interviews and leadership group sessions to identify, create, and implement resources and core functions to support investigator-initiated mHealth research. Between April 2019 and February 2020, we identified four investigator needs: 1) a seminar series on trends in mHealth research, 2) mHealth case consultation services, 3) liaison services with institutional regulatory compliance groups, and 4) online navigation tools for implementation of mHealth methods (e.g., eConsent) and for building partnerships with technology vendors. To date, the mHealth Research Core has held seven seminars, completed 71 case consultations, assisted four COVID-related clinical studies, advised the IRB on shifting to remote research, and widely disseminated eConsent navigation tools. Although pre-pandemic stakeholder and investigator needs led to the creation of the mHealth Research Core, this institutional resource played a critical role in continuing clinical research during the pandemic by assisting investigators in rapidly shifting to remote study methodology.
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.
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 | 0.036 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it