MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2308362929 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2016.24548

Micro Data: Wearable Devices Contribution to Improved Chronic Disease Management

2016· article· en· W2308362929 on OpenAlexaff
Bob Parke, Andria Bianchi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerDisease managementHealth careChronic diseaseWearable technologyWork (physics)MedicineDiseaseData managementHealth management systemBusinessComputer scienceIntensive care medicineEngineeringAlternative medicineData miningPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issues involving chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) are prevalent in today's aging society, and suggestions for improvement are essential to treat this patient demographic effectively. This article addresses the use of wearable devices for the medical community to improve CDPM by relying on the accumulation of micro data. For the patient, we recognize that these devices can be an effective tool to facilitate real-time monitoring of their vital signs and activity levels. With real-time monitoring and earlier responses, individuals can benefit by preventing, delaying or reducing exacerbations of chronic diseases. Use of these devices also has great benefit to the person and has the potential to decrease the individual's emergency room visits, hospital admissions and re-admissions. As patients and their healthcare providers work together to identify cumulative trends in their micro data, transitions in care planning will be enhanced, further contributing to improved chronic disease management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→