Effectiveness of a personalized health profile on specificity of self-management goals among people living with HIV in Canada: findings from a blinded pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate among people living with chronic HIV, to what extent providing feedback on their health outcomes will affect the number and specificity of patient-formulated self-management goals. METHODS: A personalized feedback profile was produced for individuals enrolled in a Canadian HIV Brain Health Now study. Goal specificity was measured by total number of specific words (matched to a domain-specific developed lexicon) per person-words using text mining techniques. RESULTS: Of 176 participants enrolled and randomly assigned to feedback and control groups, 110 responses were received. The average number of goals was similar for both groups (3.7 vs 3.9). The number of specific words used in the goals formulated by the feedback and control group were 642 and 739, respectively. Specific nouns and actionable verbs were present to some extent and "measurable" and "time-bound" words were mainly missing. Negative binomial regression showed no difference in goal specificity among groups (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.10). Goals set by both groups overlapped in 8 areas and had little difference in rank. CONCLUSION: Personalized feedback profile did not help with formulation of high-quality goals. Text mining has the potential to help with difficulties of goal evaluation outside of the face-to-face setting. With more data and use of learning models automated answers could be generated to provide a more dynamic platform.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".