MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320507225 · doi:10.2196/39862

Leveraging Mobile Phone Sensors, Machine Learning, and Explainable Artificial Intelligence to Predict Imminent Same-Day Binge-drinking Events to Support Just-in-time Adaptive Interventions: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4320507225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sang Won Bae, Brian Suffoletto, Tongze Zhang, Tammy Chung, Melik Ozolcer, Rahul Islam, Anind K. Dey

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsBinge drinkingPsychological interventionMachine learningDecision treemHealthArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhoneMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital just-in-time adaptive interventions can reduce binge-drinking events (BDEs; consuming ≥4 drinks for women and ≥5 drinks for men per occasion) in young adults but need to be optimized for timing and content. Delivering just-in-time support messages in the hours prior to BDEs could improve intervention impact. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the feasibility of developing a machine learning (ML) model to accurately predict future, that is, same-day BDEs 1 to 6 hours prior BDEs, using smartphone sensor data and to identify the most informative phone sensor features associated with BDEs on weekends and weekdays to determine the key features that explain prediction model performance. METHODS: We collected phone sensor data from 75 young adults (aged 21 to 25 years; mean 22.4, SD 1.9 years) with risky drinking behavior who reported their drinking behavior over 14 weeks. The participants in this secondary analysis were enrolled in a clinical trial. We developed ML models testing different algorithms (eg, extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost] and decision tree) to predict same-day BDEs (vs low-risk drinking events and non-drinking periods) using smartphone sensor data (eg, accelerometer and GPS). We tested various "prediction distance" time windows (more proximal: 1 hour; distant: 6 hours) from drinking onset. We also tested various analysis time windows (ie, the amount of data to be analyzed), ranging from 1 to 12 hours prior to drinking onset, because this determines the amount of data that needs to be stored on the phone to compute the model. Explainable artificial intelligence was used to explore interactions among the most informative phone sensor features contributing to the prediction of BDEs. RESULTS: -score=0.95 and 0.94, respectively). This XGBoost model needed 12 and 9 hours of phone sensor data at 3- and 6-hour prediction distance from the onset of drinking on weekends and weekdays, respectively, prior to predicting same-day BDEs. The most informative phone sensor features for BDE prediction were time (eg, time of day) and GPS-derived features, such as the radius of gyration (an indicator of travel). Interactions among key features (eg, time of day and GPS-derived features) contributed to the prediction of same-day BDEs. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility and potential use of smartphone sensor data and ML for accurately predicting imminent (same-day) BDEs in young adults. The prediction model provides "windows of opportunity," and with the adoption of explainable artificial intelligence, we identified "key contributing features" to trigger just-in-time adaptive intervention prior to the onset of BDEs, which has the potential to reduce the likelihood of BDEs in young adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02918565; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02918565.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207