Online sleep diaries: considerations for system development and recommendations for data management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To present development considerations for online sleep diary systems that result in robust, interpretable, and reliable data; furthermore, to describe data management procedures to address common data entry errors that occur despite those considerations. METHODS: The online sleep diary capture component of the Sleep Healthy Using the Internet (SHUTi) intervention has been designed to promote data integrity. Features include diary entry restrictions to limit retrospective bias, reminder prompts and data visualizations to support user engagement, and data validation checks to reduce data entry errors. Despite these features, data entry errors still occur. Data management procedures relying largely on programming syntax to minimize researcher effort and maximize reliability and replicability. Presumed data entry errors are identified where users are believed to have incorrectly selected a date or AM versus PM on the 12-hour clock. Following these corrections, diaries are identified that have unresolvable errors, like negative total sleep time. RESULTS: Using the example of one of our fully-powered, U.S. national SHUTi randomized controlled trials, we demonstrate the application of these procedures: of 45,598 total submitted diaries, 487 diaries (0.01%) required modification due to date and/or AM/PM errors and 27 diaries (<0.001%) were eliminated due to unresolvable errors. CONCLUSION: To secure the most complete and valid data from online sleep diary systems, it is critical to consider the design of the data collection system and to develop replicable processes to manage data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Sleep Healthy Using The Internet for Older Adult Sufferers of Insomnia and Sleeplessness (SHUTiOASIS); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03213132; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03213132.
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 | 0.272 | 0.509 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
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.
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".