Combating Fraudulent Participation in Urban American Indian and Alaska Native Virtual Health Research: Protocol for Increasing Data Integrity in Online Research (PRIOR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the advantages of using the internet and social media for research recruitment are well documented, the evolving online environment also enhances motivations for misrepresentation to receive incentives or to "troll" research studies. Such fraudulent assaults can compromise data integrity, with substantial losses in project time; money; and especially for vulnerable populations, research trust. With the rapid advent of new technology and ever-evolving social media platforms, it has become easier for misrepresentation to occur within online data collection. This perpetuation can occur by bots or individuals with malintent, but careful planning can help aid in filtering out fraudulent data. OBJECTIVE: Using an example with urban American Indian and Alaska Native young women, this paper aims to describe PRIOR (Protocol for Increasing Data Integrity in Online Research), which is a 2-step integration protocol for combating fraudulent participation in online survey research. METHODS: From February 2019 to August 2020, we recruited participants for formative research preparatory to an online randomized control trial of a preconceptual health program. First, we described our initial protocol for preventing fraudulent participation, which proved to be unsuccessful. Then, we described modifications we made in May 2020 to improve the protocol performance and the creation of PRIOR. Changes included transferring data collection platforms, collecting embedded geospatial variables, enabling timing features within the screening survey, creating URL links for each method or platform of data collection, and manually confirming potentially eligible participants' identifying information. RESULTS: Before the implementation of PRIOR, the project experienced substantial fraudulent attempts at study enrollment, with less than 1% (n=6) of 1300 screened participants being identified as truly eligible. With the modified protocol, of the 461 individuals who completed a screening survey, 381 did not meet the eligibility criteria assessed on the survey. Of the 80 that did, 25 (31%) were identified as ineligible via PRIOR. A total of 55 (69%) were identified as eligible and verified in the protocol and were enrolled in the formative study. CONCLUSIONS: Fraudulent surveys compromise study integrity, validity of the data, and trust among participant populations. They also deplete scarce research resources including respondent compensation and personnel time. Our approach of PRIOR to prevent online misrepresentation in data was successful. This paper reviews key elements regarding fraudulent data participation in online research and demonstrates why enhanced protocols to prevent fraudulent data collection are crucial for building trust with vulnerable populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04376346; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04376346. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52281.
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 | 0.196 | 0.288 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.027 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".