Remote Patient Monitoring Technologies for Predicting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: Review and Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death by disease worldwide and has a 30-day readmission rate of 22.6%. In 2015, COPD was added to the Medicare Hospital Readmission Reductions Program. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to survey the current medical technologies for remote patient monitoring (RPM) tools that forecast COPD exacerbations in order to reduce COPD readmissions. METHODS: We searched literature and digital health news to find commercially available RPM devices focused on predicting COPD exacerbations. These technologies were reviewed and compared according to four criteria: forecasting ability, cost, ease of use, and appearance. A rating system was developed to facilitate the evaluation process. RESULTS: As of June 2019, a list of handheld and hands-free devices was compiled. We compared features and found substantial variations. Devices that ranked higher on all criteria tended to have a high or unlisted price. Commonly mass-marketed devices like the pulse oximeter and spirometer surprisingly fulfilled the least criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The COPD RPM technologies with most technological promise and compatibility with daily living appear to have high or unlisted prices. Consumers and providers need better access to product information to make informed decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".