Demographic Imbalances Resulting From the Bring-Your-Own-Device Study Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health technologies, such as smartphones and wearable devices, promise to revolutionize disease prevention, detection, and treatment. Recently, there has been a surge of digital health studies where data are collected through a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) approach, in which participants who already own a specific technology may voluntarily sign up for the study and provide their digital health data. BYOD study design accelerates the collection of data from a larger number of participants than cohort design; this is possible because researchers are not limited in the study population size based on the number of devices afforded by their budget or the number of people familiar with the technology. However, the BYOD study design may not support the collection of data from a representative random sample of the target population where digital health technologies are intended to be deployed. This may result in biased study results and biased downstream technology development, as has occurred in other fields. In this viewpoint paper, we describe demographic imbalances discovered in existing BYOD studies, including our own, and we propose the Demographic Improvement Guideline to address these imbalances.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".