Reimagining Connected Care in the Era of Digital Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote patient monitoring technology, which offers exciting opportunities for expanded connected care at a distance. However, while the mode of clinicians' interactions with patients and their health data has transformed, the larger framework of how we deliver care is still driven by a model of episodic care that does not facilitate this new frontier. Fully realizing a transformation to a system of continuous connected care augmented by remote monitoring technology will require a shift in clinicians' and health systems' approach to care delivery technology and its associated data volume and complexity. In this article, we present a solution that organizes and optimizes the interaction of automated technologies with human oversight, allowing for the maximal use of data-rich tools while preserving the pieces of medical care considered uniquely human. We review implications of this "augmented continuous connected care" model of remote patient monitoring for clinical practice and offer human-centered design-informed next steps to encourage innovation around these important issues.
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 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 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".