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

Health Monitoring Using Smart Home Technologies: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4321448639 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Plinio Pelegrini Morita, Kirti Sundar Sahu, Arlene Oetomo

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.184
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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207