MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321448639 · doi:10.2196/37347

Health Monitoring Using Smart Home Technologies: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4321448639 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooResearch Institute for AgingUniversity Health Network
FundersMitacs
KeywordsCINAHLInteroperabilityHealth caremHealthTelemedicineHome automationScopusInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicineData scienceMEDLINEWorld Wide WebNursingTelecommunicationsPolitical sciencePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Internet of Things (IoT) has become integrated into everyday life, with devices becoming permanent fixtures in many homes. As countries face increasing pressure on their health care systems, smart home technologies have the potential to support population health through continuous behavioral monitoring. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide insight into this evolving field of research by surveying the current technologies and applications for in-home health monitoring. METHODS: Peer-reviewed papers from 2008 to 2021 related to smart home technologies for health care were extracted from 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL); 49 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. RESULTS: Most of the studies were from Europe and North America. The largest proportion of the studies were proof of concept or pilot studies. Approximately 78% (38/49) of the studies used real human participants, most of whom were older females. Demographic data were often missing. Nearly 60% (29/49) of the studies reported on the health status of the participants. Results were primarily reported in engineering and technology journals. Almost 62% (30/49) of the studies used passive infrared sensors to report on motion detection where data were primarily binary. There were numerous data analysis, management, and machine learning techniques employed. The primary challenges reported by authors were differentiating between multiple participants in a single space, technology interoperability, and data security and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review synthesizes the current state of research on smart home technologies for health care. We were able to identify multiple trends and knowledge gaps-in particular, the lack of collaboration across disciplines. Technological development dominates over the human-centric part of the equation. During the preparation of this scoping review, we noted that the health care research papers lacked a concrete definition of a smart home, and based on the available evidence and the identified gaps, we propose a new definition for a smart home for health care. Smart home technology is growing rapidly, and interdisciplinary approaches will be needed to ensure integration into the health sector.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.255 · 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