Deep Learning in mHealth for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Cancer: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and cancer impose a significant burden on people and health care systems around the globe. Recently, deep learning (DL) has shown great potential for the development of intelligent mobile health (mHealth) interventions for chronic diseases that could revolutionize the delivery of health care anytime, anywhere. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to present a systematic review of studies that have used DL based on mHealth data for the diagnosis, prognosis, management, and treatment of major chronic diseases and advance our understanding of the progress made in this rapidly developing field. METHODS: A search was conducted on the bibliographic databases Scopus and PubMed to identify papers with a focus on the deployment of DL algorithms that used data captured from mobile devices (eg, smartphones, smartwatches, and other wearable devices) targeting CVD, diabetes, or cancer. The identified studies were synthesized according to the target disease, the number of enrolled participants and their age, and the study period as well as the DL algorithm used, the main DL outcome, the data set used, the features selected, and the achieved performance. RESULTS: In total, 20 studies were included in the review. A total of 35% (7/20) of DL studies targeted CVD, 45% (9/20) of studies targeted diabetes, and 20% (4/20) of studies targeted cancer. The most common DL outcome was the diagnosis of the patient's condition for the CVD studies, prediction of blood glucose levels for the studies in diabetes, and early detection of cancer. Most of the DL algorithms used were convolutional neural networks in studies on CVD and cancer and recurrent neural networks in studies on diabetes. The performance of DL was found overall to be satisfactory, reaching >84% accuracy in most studies. In comparison with classic machine learning approaches, DL was found to achieve better performance in almost all studies that reported such comparison outcomes. Most of the studies did not provide details on the explainability of DL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DL can facilitate the diagnosis, management, and treatment of major chronic diseases by harnessing mHealth data. Prospective studies are now required to demonstrate the value of applied DL in real-life mHealth tools and interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".