Mobile and Wearable Technology for the Monitoring of Diabetes-Related Parameters: Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder that affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide and causes several million deaths every year. Such a dramatic scenario puts some pressure on administrations, care services, and the scientific community to seek novel solutions that may help control and deal effectively with this condition and its consequences. OBJECTIVE This study aims to review the literature on the use of modern mobile and wearable technology for monitoring parameters that condition the development or evolution of diabetes mellitus. METHODS A systematic review of articles published between January 2010 and July 2020 was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Manuscripts were identified through searching the databases Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed as well as through hand searching. Manuscripts were included if they involved the measurement of diabetes-related parameters such as blood glucose level, performed physical activity, or feet condition via wearable or mobile devices. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS The search yielded 1981 articles. A total of 26 publications met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Studies predominantly used wearable devices to monitor diabetes-related parameters. The accelerometer was by far the most used sensor, followed by the glucose monitor and heart rate monitor. Most studies applied some type of processing to the collected data, mainly consisting of statistical analysis or machine learning for activity recognition, finding associations among health outcomes, and diagnosing conditions related to diabetes. Few studies have focused on type 2 diabetes, even when this is the most prevalent type and the only preventable one. None of the studies focused on common diabetes complications. Clinical trials were fairly limited or nonexistent in most of the studies, with a common lack of detail about cohorts and case selection, comparability, and outcomes. Explicit endorsement by ethics committees or review boards was missing in most studies. Privacy or security issues were seldom addressed, and even if they were addressed, they were addressed at a rather insufficient level. CONCLUSIONS The use of mobile and wearable devices for the monitoring of diabetes-related parameters shows early promise. Its development can benefit patients with diabetes, health care professionals, and researchers. However, this field is still in its early stages. Future work must pay special attention to privacy and security issues, the use of new emerging sensor technologies, the combination of mobile and clinical data, and the development of validated clinical trials.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".