Measuring Environmental and Behavioral Drivers of Chronic Diseases Using Smartphone-Based Digital Phenotyping: Intensive Longitudinal Observational mHealth Substudy Embedded in 2 Prospective Cohorts of Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies investigating environmental and behavioral drivers of chronic disease have often had limited temporal and spatial data coverage. Smartphone-based digital phenotyping mitigates the limitations of these studies by using intensive data collection schemes that take advantage of the widespread use of smartphones while allowing for less burdensome data collection and longer follow-up periods. In addition, smartphone apps can be programmed to conduct daily or intraday surveys on health behaviors and psychological well-being. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and scalability of embedding smartphone-based digital phenotyping in large epidemiological cohorts by examining participant adherence to a smartphone-based data collection protocol in 2 ongoing nationwide prospective cohort studies. METHODS: Participants (N=2394) of the Beiwe Substudy of the Nurses' Health Study 3 and Growing Up Today Study were followed over 1 year. During this time, they completed questionnaires every 10 days delivered via the Beiwe smartphone app covering topics such as emotions, stress and enjoyment, physical activity, access to green spaces, pets, diet (vegetables, meats, beverages, nuts and dairy, and fruits), sleep, and sitting. These questionnaires aimed to measure participants' key health behaviors to combine them with objectively assessed high-resolution GPS and accelerometer data provided by participants during the same period. RESULTS: Between July 2021 and June 2023, we received 11.1 TB of GPS and accelerometer data from 2394 participants and 23,682 survey responses. The average follow-up time for each participant was 214 (SD 148) days. During this period, participants provided an average of 14.8 (SD 5.9) valid hours of GPS data and 13.2 (SD 4.8) valid hours of accelerometer data. Using a 10-hour cutoff, we found that 51.46% (1232/2394) and 53.23% (1274/2394) of participants had >50% of valid data collection days for GPS and accelerometer data, respectively. In addition, each participant submitted an average of 10 (SD 11) surveys during the same period, with a mean response rate of 36% across all surveys (SD 17%; median 41%). After initial processing of GPS and accelerometer data, we also found that participants spent an average of 14.6 (SD 7.5) hours per day at home and 1.6 (SD 1.6) hours per day on trips. We also recorded an average of 1046 (SD 1029) steps per day. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, smartphone-based digital phenotyping was used to collect intensive longitudinal data on lifestyle and behavioral factors in 2 well-established prospective cohorts. Our assessment of adherence to smartphone-based data collection protocols over 1 year suggests that adherence in our study was either higher or similar to most previous studies with shorter follow-up periods and smaller sample sizes. Our efforts resulted in a large dataset on health behaviors that can be linked to spatial datasets to examine environmental and behavioral drivers of chronic disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".