Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796861›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Did a bot eat your homework? An assessment of the potential impact of bad actors in online administration of preference surveys.

Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Kiran Grover, Thomas W Leblanc, Bryce B Reeve

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Juan Marcos GonzalezDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5386-0907
Kiran GroverIcahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States of America.
Thomas W LeblancDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Bryce B ReeveDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Duke University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline administration of surveys has a number of advantages but can also lead to increased exposure to bad actors (human and non-human bots) who can try to influence the study results or to benefit financially from the survey. We analyze data collected through an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to evaluate the likelihood that bad actors can affect the quality of the data collected.

methodsWe developed and fielded a survey instrument that included two sets of DCE questions asking respondents to select their preferred treatments for multiple myeloma therapies. The survey also included questions to assess respondents' attention while completing the survey and their understanding of the DCE questions. We used a latent-class model to identify a class associated with perverse preferences or high model variance, and the degree to which the quality checks included in the survey were correlated with class membership. Class-membership probabilities for the problematic class were used as weights in a random-parameters logit to recover population-level estimates that minimizes exposure to potential bad actors.

resultsResults show a significant proportion of respondents provided answers with a high degree of variability consistent with responses from bad actors. We also found that a wide-ranging selection of conditions in the survey screener is more consistent with choice patterns expected from bad actors looking to qualify for the study. The relationship between the number of incorrect answers to comprehension questions and problematic choice patterns peaked around 5 out of 10 questions.

conclusionsOur results highlight the need for a robust discussion around the appropriate way to handle bad actors in online preference surveys. While exclusion of survey respondents must be avoided under most circumstances, the impact of "bots" on preference estimates can be significant.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceProbabilitySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37796861
PMCPMC10553355
OpenAlexW4387362921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.