MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210720738 · doi:10.2196/preprints.8202

A Computer-Assisted Personal Interview App in Research Electronic Data Capture for Administering Time Trade-off Surveys (REDCap): Development and Pretest (Preprint)

2017· preprint· en· W4210720738 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Oremus, Anis Sharafoddini, Gian Paolo Morgano, Xuejing Jin, Feng Xie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Health SciencesImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDownloadTask (project management)PsychologyInternet privacyApplied psychologyWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The time trade-off (TTO) task is a method of eliciting health utility scores, which range from 0 (equivalent to death) to 1 (equivalent to perfect health). These scores numerically represent a person’s health-related quality of life. Software apps exist to administer the TTO task; however, most of these apps are poorly documented and unavailable to researchers. OBJECTIVE To fill the void, we developed an online app to administer the TTO task for a research study that is examining general public proxy health-related quality of life estimates for persons with Alzheimer’s disease. This manuscript describes the development and pretest of the app. METHODS We used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to build the TTO app. The app’s modular structure and REDCap’s object-oriented environment facilitated development. After the TTO app was built, we recruited a purposive sample of 11 members of the general public to pretest its functionality and ease of use. RESULTS Feedback from the pretest group was positive. Minor modifications included clarity enhancements, such as rearranging some paragraph text into bullet points, labeling the app to delineate different question sections, and revising or deleting text. We also added a research question to enable the identification of respondents who know someone with Alzheimer’s disease. CONCLUSIONS We developed an online app to administer the TTO task. Other researchers may access and customize the app for their own research purposes.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1430.074

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→