MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410640505 · doi:10.2196/69358

Technology Effects and Child Health: Wellness Impact and Social Effects (TECHWISE): Protocol for a Prospective, Observational, Real-World Study

2025· article· en· W4410640505 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott H. Kollins, Jessica Flannery, Karen Goetz, Samir Akre

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintPsychologyGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been controversy over the extent to which technology use in general-and social media exposure specifically-may be associated with adverse youth mental health outcomes. To date, studies have generally been small and exploratory, relying on youth self-reports to characterize technology and social media use patterns. The goal of this study is to explore the associations between objectively collected data, gathered through a commercially available app, and youth mental health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The broad goal of this study is to characterize the association between objectively measured technology/social media use and a range of mental health-related outcomes. Three specific aims will be initially addressed. First, we aim to quantify the association between objectively measured smartphone use and measures of well-being. Second, we aim to differentiate types of engagement-specifically, the types of content consumed versus the overall time spent on the device-and examine their association with outcomes. Third, we aim to identify moderating factors, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status, that might influence these relationships. A secondary broad objective of this research is to establish a freely available data resource that can be accessed by qualified investigators to address a much wider range of questions in the future. METHODS: Up to 1000 male, female, and nonbinary youth aged 8-17 years (inclusive), along with their primary caregivers, will be enrolled in the study. Youth participants must have their own dedicated iOS- or Android-based smartphone or tablet, and both they and their parents must be willing and able to download and install the data collection app on their devices. The study is open to all US-based participants who meet these 2 criteria. Following electronic consent (eConsent), participants and their caregivers will complete a range of baseline measures electronically, including assessments of psychiatric and social functioning, as well as measures of loneliness, digital stress, and disordered eating. Caregivers will be asked to provide information on the participant's health and mental health history. Youth and caregivers will then complete a similar battery of assessments 1, 2, and 3 months after baseline. Youth participants will also respond to daily questions about their mood, stress, physical activity, and sleep. Both youth and their caregivers will be compensated for completing measures at each time point. The data collection app gathers a wide range of daily data from the participant's device, including temporal patterns of use, the number and frequency of various app usage, social interactions within apps, and keystroke data. A variety of analytic methods will be used to address key questions related to how technology and social media use are associated with mental health and wellness outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment for this study began on November 13, 2024. As of May 20, 2025, a total of 106 participants and their caregivers had consented to participate and provided baseline data. An additional 203 children and parents have consented and are currently undergoing eligibility verification and enrollment. Initial data analysis is anticipated to begin in late autumn 2025 or winter 2026, with the expected publication of initial findings in spring 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This study will be among the largest to date to collect both objective device usage data and validated, clinically relevant outcome measures. In accordance with our data-sharing policies, any qualified investigator will be able to access the study data, provided appropriate steps are followed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06664944; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06664944. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/69358.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.435 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207