MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283808321 · doi:10.1159/000525080

Considerations for Conducting Bring Your Own “Device” (BYOD) Clinical Studies

2022· review· en· W4283808321 on OpenAlexaff
Charmaine Demanuele, Cynthia Lokker, Krishna A. Jhaveri, Pirinka Georgiev, Emre Sezgın, Cindy Geoghegan, Kelly H. Zou, Elena S. Izmailova, Marie Mc Carthy

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Biomarkers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionThe InternetHealth careComputer scienceBring your own deviceClinical trialInternet privacyMedicineMobile deviceWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Digital health technologies are attracting attention as novel tools for data collection in clinical research. They present alternative methods compared to in-clinic data collection, which often yields snapshots of the participants' physiology, behavior, and function that may be prone to biases and artifacts, e.g., white coat hypertension, and not representative of the data in free-living conditions. Modern digital health technologies equipped with multi-modal sensors combine different data streams to derive comprehensive endpoints that are important to study participants and are clinically meaningful. Used for data collection in clinical trials, they can be deployed as provisioned products where technology is given at study start or in a bring your own "device" (BYOD) manner where participants use their technologies to generate study data. Summary: The BYOD option has the potential to be more user-friendly, allowing participants to use technologies that they are familiar with, ensuring better participant compliance, and potentially reducing the bias that comes with introducing new technologies. However, this approach presents different technical, operational, regulatory, and ethical challenges to study teams. For example, BYOD data can be more heterogeneous, and recruiting historically underrepresented populations with limited access to technology and the internet can be challenging. Despite the rapid increase in digital health technologies for clinical and healthcare research, BYOD use in clinical trials is limited, and regulatory guidance is still evolving. Key Messages: We offer considerations for academic researchers, drug developers, and patient advocacy organizations on the design and deployment of BYOD models in clinical research. These considerations address: (1) early identification and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; (2) study design including informed consent and recruitment strategies; (3) outcome, endpoint, and technology selection; (4) data management including compliance and data monitoring; (5) statistical considerations to meet regulatory requirements. We believe that this article acts as a primer, providing insights into study design and operational requirements to ensure the successful implementation of BYOD clinical 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)0.491
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.548
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4910.548
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.017

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 head0.738
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.108 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital BiomarkersSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207