Identifying Fraudulent Responses in a Study Exploring Delivery Options for Pregnancies Impacted by Gestational Diabetes: Lessons Learned From a Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature is unclear on the safety and optimal timing of delivery for pregnant individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus, which inspired our study team to conduct a web-based survey study exploring patient and provider opinions on delivery options. However, an incident of fraudulent activity with survey responses prompted a shift in the focus of the research project. Unfortunately, despite the significant rise of web-based surveys used in medical research, there remains very limited evidence on the implications of and optimal methods to handle fraudulent web-based survey responses. Therefore, the objective of this viewpoint paper was to highlight our approach to identifying fraudulent responses in a web-based survey study, in the context of clinical perinatal research exploring patient and provider opinions on delivery options for pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus. Initially, we conducted cross-sectional web-based surveys across Canada with pregnant patients and perinatal health care providers. Surveys were available through Research Electronic Data Capture, and recruitment took place between March and October 2023. A change to recruitment introduced a US $5 gift card incentive to increase survey engagement. In mid-October 2023, an incident of fraudulent activity was reported, after which the surveys were deactivated. Systematic guidelines were developed by the study team in consultation with information technology services and the research ethics board to filter fraudulent from true responses. Between October 14 and 16, 2023, an influx of almost 2500 responses (393 patients and 2047 providers) was recorded in our web-based survey. Systematic filtering flagged numerous fraudulent responses. We identified fraudulent responses based on criteria including, but not limited to, identical timestamps and responses, responses with slight variations in wording and similar timestamps, and fraudulent email addresses. Therefore, the incident described in this viewpoint paper highlights the importance of preserving research integrity by using methodologically sound practices to extract true data for research findings. These fraudulent events continue to threaten the credibility of research findings and future evidence-based practices.
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 | 0.258 | 0.521 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".