ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2025
Population Recruitment Strategies in the Age of Bots: Insights from the What Is on Your Plate Study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a State-Level Incentive Program to Improve Diet.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Self-titration of cannabis consumption: An epidemiological perspective.Journal of psychiatric research · 2025Article
- Food parenting stress among caregivers receiving government food assistance: a study from the United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- A nationwide survey of orthopedic residency training in Türkiye: Theoretical education, surgical exposure, faculty engagement, and mentorship influence on resident competence.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.