Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40487551›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2025

Population Recruitment Strategies in the Age of Bots: Insights from the What Is on Your Plate Study.

Emily G Elenio, Alison Tovar, John San Soucie, Maya K Vadiveloo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Emily G ElenioDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
Alison TovarDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
John San SoucieApplied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, United States.
Maya K VadivelooDepartment of Nutrition, College of Health Sciences, The University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States.

Funding

Development of personalized healthy food incentives to improve diet and cardiovascular riskK01HL165104 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND · PI MAYA VADIVELOO · 2023 to 2026
$689k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL165104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To evaluate state-wide nutrition policies, valid tools are required to gather sufficient sample sizes. Remote data collection, including web-based dietary assessments, offers convenience for participants and researchers and enables faster and more diverse recruitment. However, it presents challenges, including risk of bots compromising data integrity. Objectives: This study describes the technical survey design of an ongoing longitudinal study, which is evaluating a state-wide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) incentive program, discusses strategies to prevent and identify bots, duplicates, fraudulent entries, and implausible data, and provides recommendations to improve future public health nutrition research. Methods: From May to September 2023, SNAP participants from Rhode Island and Connecticut were recruited to complete an online food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a demographic survey. Given the large sample and online format, our interdisciplinary team designed the technical backend to optimize participants' convenience while ensuring data quality through an automated system that assessed FFQ responses. To prevent bots and duplicates, we created duplicate application programming interfaces (API), randomly called participants, and evaluated Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (reCAPTCHA), geotags, and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Results: Using a combination of text blasts and in-person recruitment, we enrolled 1367 participants, with text blasts proving the most effective strategy (∼60% of participants). Midway through recruitment, we identified 544 potential bots that completed the screener, with duplicate IP addresses and geotags from outside the recruitment area serving as strong indicators of bot activity. At baseline, 112 participants failed FFQ data quality checks, prompting follow-up by research assistants. Our automated duplicate and FFQ APIs saved countless hours of staff time. Conclusions: Remote data collection tools were critical for meeting recruitment goals and ensuring our data authenticity. A combination of strategies is necessary to effectively mitigate against bots and ensure plausible responses. Widely available, built-in tools (e.g., reCAPTCHA) are helpful but are insufficient alone. Customized solutions like our automated systems may be critical for future researchers to maintain data integrity.

Indexed as

botsdata integritydietary assessmentfraud preventiononline survey securitySupplemental Nutrition Assistance Programweb-based food frequency questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID40487551
PMCPMC12143651

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.