Multisensory Home-Monitoring in Individuals With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma: Usability Study of the CAir-Desk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research integrating multisensory home-monitoring in respiratory disease is scarce. Therefore, we created a novel multisensory home-monitoring device tailored for long-term respiratory disease management (named the CAir-Desk). We hypothesize that recent technological accomplishments can be integrated into a multisensory participant-driven platform. We also believe that this platform could improve chronic disease management and be accessible to large groups at an acceptable cost. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report on user adherence and acceptance as well as system functionality of the CAir-Desk in a sample of participants with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma. METHODS: We conducted an observational usability study. Participants took part in 4 weeks of home-monitoring with the CAir-Desk. The CAir-Desk recorded data from all participants on symptom burden, physical activity, spirometry, and environmental air quality; data on sputum production, and nocturnal cough were only recorded for participants who experienced symptoms. After the study period, participants reported on their perceptions of the usability of the monitoring device through a purpose-designed questionnaire. We used descriptive statistics and visualizations to display results. RESULTS: Ten participants, 5 with COPD and 5 with asthma took part in this study. They completed symptom burden questionnaires on a median of 96% (25th percentile 14%, 75th percentile 96%), spirometry recordings on 55% (20%, 94%), wrist-worn physical activity recordings on 100% (97%, 100%), arm-worn physical activity recordings on 45% (13%, 63%), nocturnal cough recordings on 34% (9%, 54%), sputum recordings on 5% (3%, 12%), and environmental air quality recordings on 100% (99%, 100%) of the study days. The participants indicated that the measurements consumed a median of 13 (10, 15) min daily, and that they preferred the wrist-worn physical activity monitor to the arm-worn physical activity monitor. CONCLUSIONS: The CAir-Desk showed favorable technical performance and was well-accepted by our sample of participants with stable COPD and asthma. The obtained insights were used in a redesign of the CAir-Desk, which is currently applied in a randomized controlled trial including an interventional program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".