Wearables in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: What Are They Good for?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, companies such as Apple Inc, Fitbit Inc, and Garmin Ltd have released new wearable blood oxygenation measurement technologies. Although the release of these technologies has great potential for generating health-related information, it is important to acknowledge the repercussions of consumer-targeted biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs), which in practice, are often used for medical decision making. BioMeTs are bodily connected digital medicine products that process data captured by mobile sensors that use algorithms to generate measures of behavioral and physiological function. These BioMeTs span both general wellness products and medical devices, and consumer-targeted BioMeTs intended for general wellness purposes are not required to undergo a standardized and transparent evaluation process for ensuring their quality and accuracy. The combination of product functionality, marketing, and the circumstances of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have inevitably led to the use of consumer-targeted BioMeTs for reporting health-related measurements to drive medical decision making. In this viewpoint, we urge consumer-targeted BioMeT manufacturers to go beyond the bare minimum requirements described in US Food and Drug Administration guidance when releasing information on wellness BioMeTs. We also explore new methods and incentive systems that may result in a clearer public understanding of the performance and intended use of consumer-targeted BioMeTs.
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 | 0.026 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".