The Development of an Automated Device for Asthma Monitoring for Adolescents: Methodologic Approach and User Acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many adolescents suffer serious asthma related morbidity that can be prevented by adequate self-management of the disease. The accurate symptom monitoring by patients is the most fundamental antecedent to effective asthma management. Nonetheless, the adequacy and effectiveness of current methods of symptom self-monitoring have been challenged due to the individuals' fallible symptom perception, poor adherence, and inadequate technique. Recognition of these limitations led to the development of an innovative device that can facilitate continuous and accurate monitoring of asthma symptoms with minimal disruption of daily routines, thus increasing acceptability to adolescents. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) describe the development of a novel symptom monitoring device for teenagers (teens), and (2) assess their perspectives on the usability and acceptability of the device. METHODS: Adolescents (13-17 years old) with and without asthma participated in the evolution of an automated device for asthma monitoring (ADAM), which comprised three phases, including development (Phase 1, n=37), validation/user acceptability (Phase 2, n=84), and post hoc validation (Phase 3, n=10). In Phase 1, symptom algorithms were identified based on the acoustic analysis of raw symptom sounds and programmed into a popular mobile system, the iPod. Phase 2 involved a 7 day trial of ADAM in vivo, and the evaluation of user acceptance using an acceptance survey and individual interviews. ADAM was further modified and enhanced in Phase 3. RESULTS: Through ADAM, incoming audio data were digitized and processed in two steps involving the extraction of a sequence of descriptive feature vectors, and the processing of these sequences by a hidden Markov model-based Viterbi decoder to differentiate symptom sounds from background noise. The number and times of detected symptoms were stored and displayed in the device. The sensitivity (true positive) of the updated cough algorithm was 70% (21/30), and, on average, 2 coughs per hour were identified as false positive. ADAM also kept track of the their activity level throughout the day using the mobile system's built in accelerometer function. Overall, the device was well received by participants who perceived it as attractive, convenient, and helpful. The participants recognized the potential benefits of the device in asthma care, and were eager to use it for their asthma management. CONCLUSIONS: ADAM can potentially automate daily symptom monitoring with minimal intrusiveness and maximal objectivity. The users' acceptance of the device based on its recognized convenience, user-friendliness, and usefulness in increasing symptom awareness underscores ADAM's potential to overcome the issues of symptom monitoring including poor adherence, inadequate technique, and poor symptom perception in adolescents. Further refinement of the algorithm is warranted to improve the accuracy of the device. Future study is also needed to assess the efficacy of the device in promoting self-management and asthma outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".