Mobile technology and the digitization of healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The convergence of science and technology in our dynamic digital era has resulted in the development of innovative digital health devices that allow easy and accurate characterization in health and disease. Technological advancements and the miniaturization of diagnostic instruments to modern smartphone-connected and mobile health (mHealth) devices such as the iECG, handheld ultrasound, and lab-on-a-chip technologies have led to increasing enthusiasm for patient care with promises to decrease healthcare costs and to improve outcomes. This 'hype' for mHealth has recently intersected with the 'real world' and is providing important insights into how patients and practitioners are utilizing digital health technologies. It is also raising important questions regarding the evidence supporting widespread device use. In this state-of-the-art review, we assess the current literature of mHealth and aim to provide a framework for the advances in mHealth by understanding the various device, patient, and clinical factors as they relate to digital health from device designs and patient engagement, to clinical workflow and device regulation. We also outline new strategies for generation and analysis of mHealth data at the individual and population-based levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".