MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896287830 · doi:10.2196/12048

A Cardiopulmonary Monitoring System for Patient Transport Within Hospitals Using Mobile Internet of Things Technology: Observational Validation Study

2018· article· en· W2896287830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jang Ho Lee, Yu Rang Park, Solbi Kweon, Seul Gi Kim, Wonjun Ji, Chang‐Min Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMobile phoneThe InternetmHealthMedicineTelemedicineMedical emergencyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsHealth careWorld Wide WebPsychological interventionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During intrahospital transport, adverse events are inevitable. Real-time monitoring can be helpful for preventing these events during intrahospital transport. OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the viability of risk signal detection using wearable devices and mobile apps during intrahospital transport. An alarm was sent to clinicians in the event of oxygen saturation below 90%, heart rate above 140 or below 60 beats per minute (bpm), and network errors. We validated the reliability of the risk signal transmitted over the network. METHODS: We used two wearable devices to monitor oxygen saturation and heart rate for 23 patients during intrahospital transport for diagnostic workup or rehabilitation. To determine the agreement between the devices, records collected every 4 seconds were matched and imputation was performed if no records were collected at the same time by both devices. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to evaluate the relationships between the two devices. RESULTS: Data for 21 patients were delivered to the cloud over LTE, and data for two patients were delivered over Wi-Fi. Monitoring devices were used for 20 patients during intrahospital transport for diagnostic work up and for three patients during rehabilitation. Three patients using supplemental oxygen before the study were included. In our study, the ICC for the heart rate between the two devices was 0.940 (95% CI 0.939-0.942) and that of oxygen saturation was 0.719 (95% CI 0.711-0.727). Systemic error analyzed with Bland-Altman analysis was 0.428 for heart rate and -1.404 for oxygen saturation. During the study, 14 patients had 20 risk signals: nine signals for eight patients with less than 90% oxygen saturation, four for four patients with a heart rate of 60 bpm or less, and seven for five patients due to network error. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a system that notifies the health care provider of the risk level of a patient during transportation using a wearable device and a mobile app. Although there were some problems such as missing values and network errors, this paper is meaningful in that the previously mentioned risk detection system was validated with actual patients.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207