Machine Learning and Medication Adherence: Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This is the first scoping review to focus broadly on the topics of machine learning and medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to categorize, summarize, and analyze literature focused on using machine learning for actions related to medication adherence. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, and Web of Science were searched to find works that meet the inclusion criteria. After full-text review, 43 works were included in the final analysis. Information of interest was systematically charted before inclusion in the final draft. Studies were placed into natural categories for additional analysis dependent upon the combination of actions related to medication adherence. The protocol for this scoping review was created using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: Publications focused on predicting medication adherence have uncovered 20 strong predictors that were significant in two or more studies. A total of 13 studies that predicted medication adherence used either self-reported questionnaires or pharmacy claims data to determine medication adherence status. In addition, 13 studies that predicted medication adherence did so using either logistic regression, artificial neural networks, random forest, or support vector machines. Of the 15 studies that predicted medication adherence, 6 reported predictor accuracy, the lowest of which was 77.6%. Of 13 monitoring systems, 12 determined medication administration using medication container sensors or sensors in consumer electronics, like smartwatches or smartphones. A total of 11 monitoring systems used logistic regression, artificial neural networks, support vector machines, or random forest algorithms to determine medication administration. The 4 systems that monitored inhaler administration reported a classification accuracy of 93.75% or higher. The 2 systems that monitored medication status in patients with Parkinson disease reported a classification accuracy of 78% or higher. A total of 3 studies monitored medication administration using only smartwatch sensors and reported a classification accuracy of 78.6% or higher. Two systems that provided context-aware medication reminders helped patients to achieve an adherence level of 92% or higher. Two conversational artificial intelligence reminder systems significantly improved adherence rates when compared against traditional reminder systems. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of systems that accurately predict medication adherence across multiple data sets may be possible due to predictors remaining strong across multiple studies. Higher quality measures of adherence should be adopted when possible so that prediction algorithms are based on accurate information. Currently, medication adherence can be predicted with a good level of accuracy, potentially allowing for the development of interventions aimed at preventing nonadherence. Monitoring systems that track inhaler use currently classify inhaler-related actions with an excellent level of accuracy, allowing for tracking of adherence and potentially proper inhaler technique. Systems that monitor medication states in patients with Parkinson disease can currently achieve a good level of classification accuracy and have the potential to inform medication therapy changes in the future. Medication administration monitoring systems that only use motion sensors in smartwatches can currently achieve a good level of classification accuracy but only when differentiating between a small number of possible activities. Context-aware reminder systems can help patients achieve high levels of medication adherence but are also intrusive, which may not be acceptable to users. Conversational artificial intelligence reminder systems can significantly improve adherence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it