STROBE-GEMA: a STROBE extension for reporting of geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: While a growing body of research has been demonstrating how exposure to social and built environments relate to various health outcomes, specific pathways generally remain poorly understood. But recent technological advancements have enabled new study designs through continuous monitoring using mobile sensors and repeated questionnaires. Such geographically explicit momentary assessments (GEMA) make it possible to link momentary subjective states, behaviors, and physiological parameters to momentary environmental conditions, and can help uncover the pathways linking place to health. Despite its potential, there is currently no review of GEMA studies detailing how location data is used to measure environmental exposure, and how this in turn is linked to momentary outcomes of interest. Moreover, a lack of standard reporting of such studies hampers comparability and reproducibility. AIMS: The objectives of this research were twofold: 1) conduct a systematic review of GEMA studies that link momentary measurement with environmental data obtained from geolocation data, and 2) develop a STROBE extension guideline for GEMA studies. METHOD: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of a combination of repeated momentary measurements of a health state or behavior with GPS coordinate collection, and use of these location data to derive momentary environmental exposures. To develop the guideline, the variables extracted for the systematic review were compared to elements of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and CREMAS (CRedibility of Evidence from Multiple Analyses of the Same data) checklists, to provide a new guideline for GEMA studies. An international panel of experts participated in a consultation procedure to collectively develop the proposed checklist items. RESULTS AND DEVELOPED TOOLS: A total of 20 original GEMA studies were included in the review. Overall, several key pieces of information regarding the GEMA methods were either missing or reported heterogeneously. Our guideline provides a total of 27 categories (plus 4 subcategories), combining a total of 70 items. The 22 categories and 32 items from the original STROBE guideline have been integrated in our GEMA guideline. Eight categories and 6 items from the CREMAS guideline have been included to our guideline. We created one new category (namely "Consent") and added 32 new items specific to GEMA studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This study offers a systematic review and a STROBE extension guideline for the reporting of GEMA studies. The latter will serve to standardize the reporting of GEMA studies, as well as facilitate the interpretation of results and their generalizability. In short, this work will help researchers and public health professionals to make the most of this method to advance our understanding of how environments influence health.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it