MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941547733 · doi:10.2196/11989

Wearable-Based Mobile Health App in Gastric Cancer Patients for Postoperative Physical Activity Monitoring: Focus Group Study

2019· article· en· W2941547733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin‐Ming Wu, Te‐Wei Ho, Yao‐Ting Chang, ChungChieh Hsu, Chia Jui Tsai, Feipei Lai, Ming‐Tsan Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Taiwan UniversityNational Taiwan University HospitalMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsmHealthMedicineWearable computerCancerPhysical activityWearable technologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursingComputer sciencePsychological interventionEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical cancer patients often have deteriorated physical activity (PA), which in turn, contributes to poor outcomes and early recurrence of cancer. Mobile health (mHealth) platforms are progressively used for monitoring clinical conditions in medical subjects. Despite prevalent enthusiasm for the use of mHealth, limited studies have applied these platforms to surgical patients who are in much need of care because of acutely significant loss of physical function during the postoperative period. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility and clinical value of using 1 wearable device connected with the mHealth platform to record PA among patients with gastric cancer (GC) who had undergone gastrectomy. METHODS: We enrolled surgical GC patients during their inpatient stay and trained them to use the app and wearable device, enabling them to automatically monitor their walking steps. The patients continued to transmit data until postoperative day 28. The primary aim of this study was to validate the feasibility of this system, which was defined as the proportion of participants using each element of the system (wearing the device and uploading step counts) for at least 70% of the 28-day study. "Definitely feasible," "possibly feasible," and "not feasible" were defined as ≥70%, 50%-69%, and <50% of participants meeting the criteria, respectively. Moreover, the secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical value of measuring walking steps by examining whether they were associated with early discharge (length of hospital stay <9 days). RESULTS: We enrolled 43 GC inpatients for the analysis. The weekly submission rate at the first, second, third, and fourth week was 100%, 93%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. The overall daily submission rate was 95.5% (1150 days, with 43 subjects submitting data for 28 days). These data showed that this system met the definition of "definitely feasible." Of the 54 missed transmission days, 6 occurred in week 2, 12 occurred in week 3, and 36 occurred in week 4. The primary reason for not sending data was that patients or caregivers forgot to charge the wearable devices (>90%). Furthermore, we used a multivariable-adjusted model to predict early discharge, which demonstrated that every 1000-step increment of walking on postoperative day 5 was associated with early discharge (odds ratio 2.72, 95% CI 1.17-6.32; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating the use of mobile phone apps with wearable devices to record PA in patients of postoperative GC was feasible in patients undergoing gastrectomy in this study. With the support of the mHealth platform, this app offers seamless tracing of patients' recovery with a little extra burden and turns subjective PA into an objective, measurable parameter.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207