Interdisciplinary Collaborations in Digital Health Research: Mixed Methods Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital innovations in medicine are disruptive technologies that can change the way diagnostic procedures and treatments are delivered. Such innovations are typically designed in teams with different disciplinary backgrounds. This paper concentrates on 2 interdisciplinary research teams with 20 members from the medicine and engineering sciences working jointly on digital health solutions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to identify factors on the individual, team, and organizational levels that influence the implementation of interdisciplinary research projects elaborating on digital applications for medicine and, based on the results, to draw conclusions for the proactive design of the interdisciplinary research process to make these projects successful. METHODS: To achieve this aim, 2 interdisciplinary research teams were observed, and a small case study (response rate: 15/20, 75%) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire containing both closed and open self-report questions. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the quantitative data. The answers to the open-ended questions were subjected to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: With regard to the interdisciplinary research projects investigated, the influencing factors of the three levels presented (individual, team, and organization) have proven to be relevant for interdisciplinary research cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to recommendations for the future design of interdisciplinary cooperation, management aspects are addressed, that is, the installation of a coordinator, systematic definition of goals, required resources, and necessary efforts on the part of the involved interdisciplinary research partners. As only small groups were investigated, further research in this field is necessary to derive more general recommendations for interdisciplinary research teams. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00023909, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023909 ; German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025077, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025077.
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 | 0.041 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".