Deployment of an End-to-End Remote, Digitalized Clinical Study Protocol in COVID-19: Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic may accelerate the adoption of digital, decentralized clinical trials. Conceptual recommendations for digitalized and remote clinical studies and technology are available to enable digitalization. Fully remote studies may break down some of the participation barriers in traditional trials. However, they add logistical complexity and offer fewer opportunities to intervene following a technical failure or adverse event. OBJECTIVE: Our group designed an end-to-end digitalized clinical study protocol, using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared Current Health (CH) remote monitoring platform to collect symptoms and continuous physiological data of individuals recently infected with COVID-19 in the community. The purpose of this work is to provide a detailed example of an end-to-end digitalized protocol implementation based on conceptual recommendations by describing the study setup in detail, evaluating its performance, and identifying points of success and failure. METHODS: ), skin temperature, and step count, while a tablet administered symptom surveys. Data were transmitted in real time to the CH cloud-based platform and displayed in the web-based dashboard, with alerts to the study team if the wearable was not charged or worn. The study duration was up to 30 days. The time to recruit, screen, consent, set up equipment, and collect data was quantified, and advertising engagement was tracked with a web analytics service. RESULTS: Of 13 different study advertisements, 5 (38.5%) were live on social media at any one time. In total, 38 eligibility forms were completed, and 19 (50%) respondents met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 9 (47.4%) were contactable and 8 (88.9%) provided informed consent. Deployment times ranged from 22 to 110 hours, and participants set up the equipment and started transmitting vital signs within 7.6 (IQR 6.3-10) hours of delivery. The mean wearable adherence was 70% (SD 19%), and the mean daily survey adherence was 88% (SD 21%) for the 8 participants. Vital signs were in normal ranges during study participation, and symptoms decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of clinical study implementation is important to capture what works and what might need to be modified. A well-calibrated approach to online advertising and enrollment can remove barriers to recruitment and lower costs but remains the most challenging part of research. Equipment was effectively and promptly shipped to participants and removed the risk of illness transmission associated with in-person encounters during a pandemic. Wearable technology incorporating continuous, clinical-grade monitoring offered an unprecedented level of detail and ecological validity. However, study planning, relationship building, and troubleshooting are more complex in the remote setting. The relevance of a study to potential participants remains key to its success.
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 | 0.330 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".