NextGen Public Health Surveillance and the Internet of Things (IoT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in technology have led to the rise of new-age data sources (e.g., Internet of Things (IoT), wearables, social media, and mobile health). IoT is becoming ubiquitous, and data generation is accelerating globally. Other health research domains have used IoT as a data source, but its potential has not been thoroughly explored and utilized systematically in public health surveillance. This article summarizes the existing literature on the use of IoT as a data source for surveillance. It presents the shortcomings of current data sources and how NextGen data sources, including the large-scale applications of IoT, can meet the needs of surveillance. The opportunities and challenges of using these modern data sources in public health surveillance are also explored. These IoT data ecosystems are being generated with minimal effort by the device users and benefit from high granularity, objectivity, and validity. Advances in computing are now bringing IoT-based surveillance into the realm of possibility. The potential advantages of IoT data include high-frequency, high volume, zero effort data collection methods, with a potential to have syndromic surveillance. In contrast, the critical challenges to mainstream this data source within surveillance systems are the huge volume and variety of data, fusing data from multiple devices to produce a unified result, and the lack of multidisciplinary professionals to understand the domain and analyze the domain data accordingly.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".