Early Identification of COVID-19 Infection Using Remote Cardiorespiratory Monitoring: Three Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adoption of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in routine medical care requires increased understanding of the physiologic changes accompanying disease development and the proactive interventions that will improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to present three case reports that highlight the capability of RPM to enable early identification of viral infection with COVID-19 in patients with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: Patients at a large pulmonary practice who were enrolled in a respiratory RPM program and who had contracted COVID-19 were identified. The RPM system (Spire Health) contains three components: (1) Health Tags (Spire Health), undergarment waistband-adhered physiologic monitors that include a respiratory rate sensor; (2) an app on a smartphone; and (3) a web dashboard for use by respiratory therapists. The physiologic data of 9 patients with COVID out of 1000 patients who were enrolled for monitoring were retrospectively reviewed, and 3 instances were identified where the RPM system had notified clinicians of physiologic deviation due to the viral infection. RESULTS: Physiologic deviations from respective patient baselines occurred during infection onset and, although the infection manifested differently in each case, were identified by the RPM system. In the first case, the patient was symptomatic; in the second case, the patient was presymptomatic; and in the third case, the patient varied from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: RPM systems intended for long-term use and that use patient-specific baselines can highlight physiologic changes early in the course of acute disease, such as COVID-19 infection. These cases demonstrate opportunities for earlier diagnosis, treatment, and isolation. This study supports the need for further research into how RPM can be effectively integrated into clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".