MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306248069 · doi:10.2196/36696

Health-Related Indicators Measured Using Earable Devices: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4306248069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionIran Telecommunication Research Center
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseWearable computerDisease preventionSystematic reviewHealth careMEDLINEWearable technologyBody positionTelemedicineComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathologyEnvironmental healthEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Earable devices are novel, wearable Internet of Things devices that are user-friendly and have potential applications in mobile health care. The position of the ear is advantageous for assessing vital status and detecting diseases through reliable and comfortable sensing devices. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to review the utility of health-related indicators derived from earable devices and propose an improved definition of disease prevention. We also proposed future directions for research on the health care applications of earable devices. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Keywords were used to identify studies on earable devices published between 2015 and 2020. The earable devices were described in terms of target health outcomes, biomarkers, sensor types and positions, and their utility for disease prevention. RESULTS: A total of 51 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, and the frequency of 5 health-related characteristics of earable devices was described. The most frequent target health outcomes were diet-related outcomes (9/51, 18%), brain status (7/51, 14%), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and central nervous system disease (5/51, 10% each). The most frequent biomarkers were electroencephalography (11/51, 22%), body movements (6/51, 12%), and body temperature (5/51, 10%). As for sensor types and sensor positions, electrical sensors (19/51, 37%) and the ear canal (26/51, 51%) were the most common, respectively. Moreover, the most frequent prevention stages were secondary prevention (35/51, 69%), primary prevention (12/51, 24%), and tertiary prevention (4/51, 8%). Combinations of ≥2 target health outcomes were the most frequent in secondary prevention (8/35, 23%) followed by brain status and CVD (5/35, 14% each) and by central nervous system disease and head injury (4/35, 11% each). CONCLUSIONS: Earable devices can provide biomarkers for various health outcomes. Brain status, healthy diet status, and CVDs were the most frequently targeted outcomes among the studies. Earable devices were mostly used for secondary prevention via monitoring of health or disease status. The potential utility of earable devices for primary and tertiary prevention needs to be investigated further. Earable devices connected to smartphones or tablets through cloud servers will guarantee user access to personal health information and facilitate comfortable wearing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.291 · 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