Using a Semiautomated Procedure (CleanADHdata.R Script) to Clean Electronic Adherence Monitoring Data: Tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to medications can be assessed using interactive digital health technologies such as electronic monitors (EMs). Changes in treatment regimens and deviations from EM use over time must be characterized to establish the actual level of medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: We developed the computer script CleanADHdata.R to clean raw EM adherence data, and this tutorial is a guide for users. METHODS: In addition to raw EM data, we collected adherence start and stop monitoring dates and identified the prescribed regimens, the expected number of EM openings per day based on the prescribed regimen, EM use deviations, and patients' demographic data. The script formats the data longitudinally and calculates each day's medication implementation. RESULTS: We provided a simulated data set for 10 patients, for which 15 EMs were used over a median period of 187 (IQR 135-342) days. The median patient implementation before and after EM raw data cleaning was 83.3% (IQR 71.5%-93.9%) and 97.3% (IQR 95.8%-97.6%), respectively (Δ+14%). This difference is substantial enough to consider EM data cleaning to be capable of avoiding data misinterpretation and providing a cleaned data set for the adherence analysis in terms of implementation and persistence. CONCLUSIONS: The CleanADHdata.R script is a semiautomated procedure that increases standardization and reproducibility. This script has broader applicability within the realm of digital health, as it can be used to clean adherence data collected with diverse digital technologies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.065 |
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".