MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896880582 · doi:10.2196/12077

The Internet of Things in Health Care in Oxford: Protocol for Proof-of-Concept Projects

2018· article· en· W2896880582 on OpenAlex
Edward Meinert, Michelle Helena van Velthoven, David Brindley, Abrar Alturkistani, Kimberley Foley, Siân Rees, Glenn Wells, Nick de Pennington

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResearch England
KeywordsHealth careThe InternetProtocol (science)Internet privacyHealth care deliveryPopulationMedicinePublic relationsNursingComputer scienceAlternative medicineWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Demands on health services across are increasing because of the combined challenges of an expanding and aging population, alongside complex comorbidities that transcend the classical boundaries of modern health care. Continuing to provide and coordinate care in the current manner is not a viable route to sustain the improvements in health outcomes observed in recent history. To ensure that there continues to be improvement in patient care, prevention of disease, and reduced burden on health systems, it is essential that we adapt our models of delivery. Providers of health and social care are evolving to face these pressures by changing the way they think about the care system and, importantly, how to involve patients in the planning and delivery of services. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to provide (1) an overview of the current state of Internet of Things (IoT) and key implementation considerations, (2) key use cases demonstrating technology capabilities, (3) an overview of the landscape for health care IoT use in Oxford, and (4) recommendations for promoting the IoT via collaborations between higher education institutions and industry proof-of-concept (PoC) projects. METHODS: This study describes the PoC projects that will be created to explore cost-effectiveness, clinical efficacy, and user adoption of Internet of Medical Things systems. The projects will focus on 3 areas: (1) bring your own device integration, (2) chronic disease management, and (3) personal health records. RESULTS: This study is funded by Research England's Connecting Capability Fund. The study started in March 2018, and results are expected by the end of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing digital solutions to support the evolution and transformation of health services is essential. Importantly, this should not simply be undertaken by providers in isolation. It must embrace and exploit the advances being seen in the consumer devices, national rollout of high-speed broadband services, and the rapidly expanding medical device industry centered on mobile and wearable technologies. Oxford University Hospitals and its partner providers, patients, and stakeholders are building on their leading position as an exemplar site for digital maturity in the National Health Service to implement and evaluate technologies and solutions that will capitalize on the IoT. Although early in the application to health, the IoT and the potential it provides to make the patient a partner at the center of decisions about care represent an exciting opportunity. If achieved, a fully connected and interoperable health care environment will enable continuous acquisition and real-time analysis of patient data, offering unprecedented ability to monitor patients, manage disease, and potentially deliver early diagnosis. The clinical benefit of this is clear, but additional patient benefit and value will be gained from being able to provide expert care at home or close to home. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12077.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.331 · 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