Clinical Applications of Mobile Health Wearable–Based Sleep Monitoring: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders are a major public health issue. Nearly 1 in 2 people experience sleep disturbances during their lifetime, with a potential harmful impact on well-being and physical and mental health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to better understand the clinical applications of wearable-based sleep monitoring; therefore, we conducted a review of the literature, including feasibility studies and clinical trials on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Web of Science through June 2019. We created the list of keywords based on 2 domains: wearables and sleep. The primary selection criterion was the reporting of clinical trials using wearable devices for sleep recording in adults. RESULTS: The initial search identified 645 articles; 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. In all, 4 categories of the selected articles appeared. Of the 19 studies in this review, 58 % (11/19) were comparison studies with the gold standard, 21% (4/19) were feasibility studies, 15% (3/19) were population comparison studies, and 5% (1/19) assessed the impact of sleep disorders in the clinic. The samples were heterogeneous in size, ranging from 1 to 15,839 patients. Our review shows that mobile-health (mHealth) wearable-based sleep monitoring is feasible. However, we identified some major limitations to the reliability of wearable-based monitoring methods compared with polysomnography. CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that wearables provide acceptable sleep monitoring but with poor reliability. However, wearable mHealth devices appear to be promising tools for ecological monitoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".