MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925307007 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/sjrea

Exploring the use of CGM-based biological feedback for improving health behaviors: A scoping review protocol

2023· other· en· W6925307007 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)Behavior changeRandomized controlled trialBehavior change methodsMEDLINEData extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Biological feedback is increasingly being used as a behavior change technique within personalized health interventions. One form of biological feedback that has recently become more accessible is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which can be used to provide individuals with insights on the impact of various behaviors (e.g., diet, physical activity) on glucose levels. Nevertheless, there is little guidance on how CGM is implemented within interventions that address health behaviors. Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to (1) identify the populations where CGM has been used as a behavior change tool, and (2) characterize how CGM is implemented within interventions to address behavior. Methods: A search strategy was developed to capture studies incorporating the use of CGM-based biological feedback to promote health behavior change. The search was implemented within the following electronic databases: Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Additional studies were captured by examining the bibliographies of relevant reviews. Two trained reviewers used DistillerSR® (Evidence Partners; Ottawa, Canada) to screen studies for eligibility and extract data. Eligible studies were primary analyses of randomized controlled trials conducted in humans ≥18 years that included CGM-based biological feedback to promote behavior change as part of the intervention. Data extracted from eligible articles were focused on the methodology used to implement the intervention and control group (e.g., duration of CGM wear, format and frequency of feedback, etc.). Results: Database searches were completed in January 2024. A total of 3,995 abstracts were screened. Data from 32 included articles was extracted and is currently being analyzed. The scoping review is planned for completion in 2024. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to describe the characteristics of how CGM is being used within interventions promoting behavior change. Results can be used to guide the design and implementation of future interventions incorporating the use of CGM-based biological feedback aimed at addressing health behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.202 · 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