MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281476135 · doi:10.2196/37054

Feasibility of Conducting Long-term Health and Behaviors Follow-up in Adolescents: Longitudinal Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4281476135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giovanni Cucchiaro, Luis Ahumada, Geoffrey Gray, Jamie L. Fierstein, Hannah Yates, Kym Householder, William S. Frye, Mohamed Rehman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPhysical therapyAnxietyObservational studyMedicineData collectionPopulationDownloadComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Machine learning uses algorithms that improve automatically through experience. This statistical learning approach is a natural extension of traditional statistical methods and can offer potential advantages for certain problems. The feasibility of using machine learning techniques in health care is predicated on access to a sufficient volume of data in a problem space. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of data collection from an adolescent population before and after a posterior spine fusion operation. METHODS: Both physical and psychosocial data were collected. Adolescents scheduled for a posterior spine fusion operation were approached when they were scheduled for the surgery. The study collected repeated measures of patient data, including at least 2 weeks prior to the operation and 6 months after the patients were discharged from the hospital. Patients were provided with a Fitbit Charge 4 (consumer-grade health tracker) and instructed to wear it as often as possible. A third-party web-based portal was used to collect and store the Fitbit data, and patients were trained on how to download and sync their personal device data on step counts, sleep time, and heart rate onto the web-based portal. Demographic and physiologic data recorded in the electronic medical record were retrieved from the hospital data warehouse. We evaluated changes in the patients' psychological profile over time using several validated questionnaires (ie, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory). Questionnaires were administered to patients using Qualtrics software. Patients received the questionnaire prior to and during the hospitalization and again at 3 and 6 months postsurgery. We administered paper-based questionnaires for the self-report of daily pain scores and the use of analgesic medications. RESULTS: There were several challenges to data collection from the study population. Only 38% (32/84) of the patients we approached met eligibility criteria, and 50% (16/32) of the enrolled patients dropped out during the follow-up period-on average 17.6 weeks into the study. Of those who completed the study, 69% (9/13) reliably wore the Fitbit and downloaded data into the web-based portal. These patients also had a high response rate to the psychosocial surveys. However, none of the patients who finished the study completed the paper-based pain diary. There were no difficulties accessing the demographic and clinical data stored in the hospital data warehouse. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies several challenges to long-term medical follow-up in adolescents, including willingness to participate in these types of studies and compliance with the various data collection approaches. Several of these challenges-insufficient incentives and personal contact between researchers and patients-should be addressed in future studies.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.721
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.110 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→