MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283018738 · doi:10.2196/36741

Continuous Remote Patient Monitoring in Patients With Heart Failure (Cascade Study): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

2022· article· en· W4283018738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Courtney Reamer, Wei Ning, Robert Gordon, Nitasha Sarswat, Charu Gupta, Safwan Gaznabi, Emily White VanGompel, Izabella Szum, Melissa Morton-Jost, Jorma Vaughn, Karen Larimer, David Victorson, John P. Erwin, Lakshmi Halasyamani, Anthony Solomonides, Rema Padman, Nirav Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineExacerbationAmbulatoryHeart failureEmergency medicineWearable computerMedical emergencyProtocol (science)Physical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineComputer scienceAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent chronic disease and is associated with increases in mortality and morbidity. HF is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. A potentially promising area for preventing HF readmissions is continuous remote patient monitoring (CRPM). OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a CRPM solution in patients with HF at NorthShore University HealthSystem. METHODS: This study is a feasibility study and uses a wearable biosensor to continuously remotely monitor patients with HF for 30 days after discharge. Eligible patients admitted with an HF exacerbation at NorthShore University HealthSystem are being recruited, and the wearable biosensor is placed before discharge. The biosensor collects physiological ambulatory data, which are analyzed for signs of patient deterioration. Participants are also completing a daily survey through a dedicated study smartphone. If prespecified criteria from the physiological data and survey results are met, a notification is triggered, and a predetermined electronic health record-based pathway of telephonic management is completed. In phase 1, which has already been completed, 5 patients were enrolled and monitored for 30 days after discharge. The results of phase 1 were analyzed, and modifications to the program were made to optimize it. After analysis of the phase 1 results, 15 patients are being enrolled for phase 2, which is a calibration and testing period to enable further adjustments to be made. After phase 2, we will enroll 45 patients for phase 3. The combined results of phases 1, 2, and 3 will be analyzed to determine the feasibility of a CRPM program in patients with HF. Semistructured interviews are being conducted with key stakeholders, including patients, and these results will be analyzed using the affective adaptation of the technology acceptance model. RESULTS: During phase 1, of the 5 patients, 2 (40%) were readmitted during the study period. The study completion rate for phase 1 was 80% (4/5), and the study attrition rate was 20% (1/5). There were 57 protocol deviations out of 150 patient days in phase 1 of the study. The results of phase 1 were analyzed, and the study protocol was adjusted to optimize it for phases 2 and 3. Phase 2 and phase 3 results will be available by the end of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: A CRPM program may offer a low-risk solution to improve care of patients with HF after hospital discharge and may help to decrease readmission of patients with HF to the hospital. This protocol may also lay the groundwork for the use of CRPM solutions in other groups of patients considered to be at high risk. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36741.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.217
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→