MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912670811 · doi:10.2196/10238

Collecting Symptoms and Sensor Data With Consumer Smartwatches (the Knee OsteoArthritis, Linking Activity and Pain Study): Protocol for a Longitudinal, Observational Feasibility Study

2018· article· en· W2912670811 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna L. Beukenhorst, M.J. Parkes, L. M. Cook, Rebecca Barnard, Sabine N van der Veer, Max A. Little, Kelly Howells, Caroline Sanders, Jamie C. Sergeant, Terence W O’Neill, John McBeth, William G Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus ArthritisMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsObservational studyOsteoarthritisSmartwatchProtocol (science)Physical therapyMedicineKnee painPhysical activityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWearable computerComputer scienceAlternative medicineInternal medicineEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Knee OsteoArthritis, Linking Activity and Pain (KOALAP) study is the first to test the feasibility of using consumer-grade cellular smartwatches for health care research. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim was to investigate the feasibility of using consumer-grade cellular smartwatches as a novel tool to capture data on pain (multiple times a day) and physical activity (continuously) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additionally, KOALAP aimed to investigate smartwatch sensor data quality and assess whether engagement, acceptability, and user experience are sufficient for future large-scale observational and interventional studies. METHODS: A total of 26 participants with self-diagnosed knee osteoarthritis were recruited in September 2017. All participants were aged 50 years or over and either lived in or were willing to travel to the Greater Manchester area. Participants received a smartwatch (Huawei Watch 2) with a bespoke app that collected patient-reported outcomes via questionnaires and continuous watch sensor data. All data were collected daily for 90 days. Additional data were collected through interviews (at baseline and follow-up) and baseline and end-of-study questionnaires. This study underwent full review by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee (#0165) and University Information Governance (#IGRR000060). For qualitative data analysis, a system-level security policy was developed in collaboration with the University Information Governance Office. Additionally, the project underwent an internal review process at Google, including separate reviews of accessibility, product engineering, privacy, security, legal, and protection regulation compliance. RESULTS: Participants were recruited in September 2017. Data collection via the watches was completed in January 2018. Collection of qualitative data through patient interviews is still ongoing. Data analysis will commence when all data are collected; results are expected in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: KOALAP is the first health study to use consumer cellular smartwatches to collect self-reported symptoms alongside sensor data for musculoskeletal disorders. The results of this study will be used to inform the design of future mobile health studies. Results for feasibility and participant motivations will inform future researchers whether or under which conditions cellular smartwatches are a useful tool to collect patient-reported outcomes alongside passively measured patient behavior. The exploration of associations between self-reported symptoms at different moments will contribute to our understanding of whether it may be valuable to collect symptom data more frequently. Sensor data-quality measurements will indicate whether cellular smartwatch usage is feasible for obtaining sensor data. Methods for data-quality assessment and data-processing methods may be reusable, although generalizability to other clinical areas should be further investigated. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/10238.

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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.650
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207