Enabling Research and Clinical Use of Patient-Generated Health Data (the mindLAMP Platform): Digital Phenotyping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for the integration of patient-generated health data (PGHD) into research and clinical care to enable personalized, preventive, and interactive care, but technical and organizational challenges, such as the lack of standards and easy-to-use tools, preclude the effective use of PGHD generated from consumer devices, such as smartphones and wearables. OBJECTIVE: This study outlines how we used mobile apps and semantic web standards such as HTTP 2.0, Representational State Transfer, JSON (JavaScript Object Notation), JSON Schema, Transport Layer Security (version 1.3), Advanced Encryption Standard-256, OpenAPI, HTML5, and Vega, in conjunction with patient and provider feedback to completely update a previous version of mindLAMP. METHODS: The Learn, Assess, Manage, and Prevent (LAMP) platform addresses the abovementioned challenges in enhancing clinical insight by supporting research, data analysis, and implementation efforts around PGHD as an open-source solution with freely accessible and shared code. RESULTS: With a simplified programming interface and novel data representation that captures additional metadata, the LAMP platform enables interoperability with existing Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-based health care systems as well as consumer wearables and services such as Apple HealthKit and Google Fit. The companion Cortex data analysis and machine learning toolkit offer robust support for artificial intelligence, behavioral feature extraction, interactive visualizations, and high-performance data processing through parallelization and vectorization techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The LAMP platform incorporates feedback from patients and clinicians alongside a standards-based approach to address these needs and functions across a wide range of use cases through its customizable and flexible components. These range from simple survey-based research to international consortiums capturing multimodal data to simple delivery of mindfulness exercises through personalized, just-in-time adaptive interventions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".