A/B Testing of User Enrollment Forms to Enhance Diversity in the Biomedical Workforce via the National Research Mentoring Network: User-Centered Design Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is a National Institutes of Health-funded program for diversifying the science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine research workforce through the provision of mentoring, networking, and professional development resources. The NRMN provides mentoring resources to members through its online platform-MyNRMN. Objective: MyNRMN helps members build a network of mentors. Our goal was to expand enrollment and mentoring connections, especially among those who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical training and the biomedical workforce. Methods: To improve the ease of enrollment, we implemented the split testing of iterations of our user interface for platform registration. To increase mentoring connections, we developed multiple features that facilitate connecting via different pathways. Results: Our improved user interface yielded significantly higher rates of completed registrations (P<.001). Our analysis showed improvement in completed enrollments that used the version 1 form when compared to those that used the legacy form (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.30-1.78). The version 2 form, with its simplified, 1-step process and fewer required fields, outperformed the legacy form (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.90-2.50). By improving the enrollment form, the rate of MyNRMN enrollment completion increased from 57.3% (784/1368) with the legacy form to 74.5% (2016/2706) with the version 2 form. Our newly developed features delivered an increase in connections between members. Conclusions: Our technical efforts expanded MyNRMN's membership base and increased connections between members. Other platform development teams can learn from these efforts to increase enrollment among underrepresented groups and foster continuing, successful engagement.
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 | 0.131 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".