“Making Data the Drug”: A Pragmatic Pilot Feasibility Randomized Crossover Trial of Data Visualization as an Intervention for Pediatric Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data tracking is a common feature of pain e-health applications, however, viewing visualizations of this data has not been investigated for its potential as an intervention itself. We conducted a pilot feasibility parallel randomized cross-over trial, 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants were youth age 12-18 years recruited from a tertiary-level pediatric chronic pain clinic in Western Canada. Participants completed two weeks of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data collection, one of which also included access to a data visualization platform to view their results. Order of weeks was randomized, participants were not masked to group assignment. Objectives were to establish feasibility related to recruitment, retention, and participant experience. Of 146 youth approached, 48 were eligible and consented to participation, two actively withdrew prior to the EMA. Most participants reported satisfaction with the process and provided feedback on additional variables of interest. Technical issues with the data collection platform impacted participant experience and data analysis, and only 48% viewed the visualizations. Four youth reported adverse events not related to visualizations. Data visualization offers a promising clinical tool, and patient experience feedback is critical to modifying the platform and addressing technical issues to prepare for deployment in a larger trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".