Lessons Learned: Recommendations For Implementing a Longitudinal Study Using Wearable and Environmental Sensors in a Health Care Organization (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>UNSTRUCTURED</title> Although traditional methods of data collection in naturalistic settings can shed light on constructs of interest to researchers, advances in sensor-based technology allow researchers to capture continuous physiological and behavioral data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the constructs that are examined in a dynamic health care setting. This study gives examples for implementing technology-facilitated approaches and provides the following recommendations for conducting such longitudinal, sensor-based research, with both environmental and wearable sensors in a health care setting: pilot test sensors and software early and often; build trust with key stakeholders and with potential participants who may be wary of sensor-based data collection and concerned about privacy; generate excitement for novel, new technology during recruitment; monitor incoming sensor data to troubleshoot sensor issues; and consider the logistical constraints of sensor-based research. The study describes how these recommendations were successfully implemented by providing examples from a large-scale, longitudinal, sensor-based study of hospital employees at a large hospital in California. The knowledge gained from this study may be helpful to researchers interested in obtaining dynamic, longitudinal sensor data from both wearable and environmental sensors in a health care setting (eg, a hospital) to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of constructs of interest in an ecologically valid, secure, and efficient way. </sec>
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".