Influential Factors in Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure Patients: A Review of the Literature and Direction for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With new advances in technology, remote monitoring of heart failure (HF) patients has become increasingly prevalent and has the potential to greatly enhance the outcome of care. Many studies have focused on implementing systems for the management of HF by analyzing physiological signals for the early detection of HF decompensation. This paper reviews recent literature exploring significant physiological variables, compares their reliability in predicting HF-related events, and examines the findings according to the monitored variables used such as body weight, bio-impedance, blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration rate. The reviewed studies identified correlations between the monitored variables and the number of alarms, HF-related events, and/or readmission rates. It was observed that the most promising results came from studies that used a combination of multiple parameters, compared to using an individual variable. The main challenges discussed include inaccurate data collection leading to contradictory outcomes from different studies, compliance with daily monitoring, and consideration of additional factors such as physical activity and diet. The findings demonstrate the need for a shared remote monitoring platform which can lead to a significant reduction of false alarms and help in collecting reliable data from the patients for clinical use especially for the prevention of cardiac events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".