Adherence and Satisfaction of Smartphone- and Smartwatch-Based Remote Active Testing and Passive Monitoring in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Nonrandomized Interventional Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current clinical assessments of people with multiple sclerosis are episodic and may miss critical features of functional fluctuations between visits. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to assess the feasibility of remote active testing and passive monitoring using smartphones and smartwatch technology in people with multiple sclerosis with respect to adherence and satisfaction with the FLOODLIGHT test battery. METHODS: People with multiple sclerosis (aged 20 to 57 years; Expanded Disability Status Scale 0-5.5; n=76) and healthy controls (n=25) performed the FLOODLIGHT test battery, comprising active tests (daily, weekly, every two weeks, or on demand) and passive monitoring (sensor-based gait and mobility) for 24 weeks using a smartphone and smartwatch. The primary analysis assessed adherence (proportion of weeks with at least 3 days of completed testing and 4 hours per day passive monitoring) and questionnaire-based satisfaction. In-clinic assessments (clinical and magnetic resonance imaging) were performed. RESULTS: People with multiple sclerosis showed 70% (16.68/24 weeks) adherence to active tests and 79% (18.89/24 weeks) to passive monitoring; satisfaction score was on average 73.7 out of 100. Neither adherence nor satisfaction was associated with specific population characteristics. Test-battery assessments had an at least acceptable impact on daily activities in over 80% (61/72) of people with multiple sclerosis. CONCLUSIONS: People with multiple sclerosis were engaged and satisfied with the FLOODLIGHT test battery. FLOODLIGHT sensor-based measures may enable continuous assessment of multiple sclerosis disease in clinical trials and real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02952911; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02952911.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".