MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319441782 · doi:10.2196/41178

Smartphone and Wearable Sensors for the Estimation of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Disease Severity: Cross-sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4319441782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahnjili Zhuparris, Ghobad Maleki, Ingrid Koopmans, Robert J. Doll, Nicoline Voet, Wessel Kraaij, Adam F. Cohen, Emilie M.J. van Brummelen, Joris H. De Maeyer, Geert Jan Groeneveld

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse regering
KeywordsFacioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophyMedicineWearable computerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRegression analysisCross-validationMuscular dystrophyPhysical therapyComputer scienceInternal medicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a progressive neuromuscular disease. Its slow and variable progression makes the development of new treatments highly dependent on validated biomarkers that can quantify disease progression and response to drug interventions. Objective We aimed to build a tool that estimates FSHD clinical severity based on behavioral features captured using smartphone and remote sensor data. The adoption of remote monitoring tools, such as smartphones and wearables, would provide a novel opportunity for continuous, passive, and objective monitoring of FSHD symptom severity outside the clinic. Methods In total, 38 genetically confirmed patients with FSHD were enrolled. The FSHD Clinical Score and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test were used to assess FSHD symptom severity at days 0 and 42. Remote sensor data were collected using an Android smartphone, Withings Steel HR+, Body+, and BPM Connect+ for 6 continuous weeks. We created 2 single-task regression models that estimated the FSHD Clinical Score and TUG separately. Further, we built 1 multitask regression model that estimated the 2 clinical assessments simultaneously. Further, we assessed how an increasingly incremental time window affected the model performance. To do so, we trained the models on an incrementally increasing time window (from day 1 until day 14) and evaluated the predictions of the clinical severity on the remaining 4 weeks of data. Results The single-task regression models achieved an R2 of 0.57 and 0.59 and a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 2.09 and 1.66 when estimating FSHD Clinical Score and TUG, respectively. Time spent at a health-related location (such as a gym or hospital) and call duration were features that were predictive of both clinical assessments. The multitask model achieved an R2 of 0.66 and 0.81 and an RMSE of 1.97 and 1.61 for the FSHD Clinical Score and TUG, respectively, and therefore outperformed the single-task models in estimating clinical severity. The 3 most important features selected by the multitask model were light sleep duration, total steps per day, and mean steps per minute. Using an increasing time window (starting from day 1 to day 14) for the FSHD Clinical Score, TUG, and multitask estimation yielded an average R2 of 0.65, 0.79, and 0.76 and an average RMSE of 3.37, 2.05, and 4.37, respectively. Conclusions We demonstrated that smartphone and remote sensor data could be used to estimate FSHD clinical severity and therefore complement the assessment of FSHD outside the clinic. In addition, our results illustrated that training the models on the first week of data allows for consistent and stable prediction of FSHD symptom severity. Longitudinal follow-up studies should be conducted to further validate the reliability and validity of the multitask model as a tool to monitor disease progression over a longer period. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04999735; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04999735

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207