“Anything that would help is a positive development”: feasibility, tolerability, and user experience of smartphone-based digital phenotyping for people with and without type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Digital phenotyping, the in-situ collection of passive (phone sensor) and active (daily surveys) data using a digital device, may provide new insights into the complex relationship between daily behaviour and mood for people with type 2 diabetes. However, there are critical knowledge gaps regarding its use in people with type 2 diabetes. This study assessed feasibility, tolerability, and user experience of digital phenotyping in people with and without type 2 diabetes after participation in a 2-month digital phenotyping study in Ireland. At study completion, participants rated methodology elements from “not a problem” to a “serious problem” on a 5-point scale and reported their comfort with the potential future use of digital phenotyping in healthcare, with space for qualitative expansion. Results Eighty-two participants completed baseline. Attrition was 18.8%. Missing data ranged from 9–44% depending on data stream. Sixty-eight participants (82.9%) completed the user experience questionnaire (51.5% with type 2 diabetes; 61.8% female; median age-group 50–59). Tolerability of digital phenotyping was high, with “not a problem” being selected 76.5%—89.7% of the time across questions. People with type 2 diabetes (93.9%) were significantly more likely to be comfortable with their future healthcare provider having access to their digital phenotyping data than those without (53.1%), χ2 (1) = 14.01, p = < .001. Free text responses reflected a range of positive and negative experiences with the study methodology. Conclusions An uncompensated, 2-month digital phenotyping study was feasible among people with and without diabetes, with low attrition and reasonable missing data rates. Participants found digital phenotyping to be acceptable, and even enjoyable. The potential benefits of digital phenotyping for healthcare may be more apparent to people with type 2 diabetes than the general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".