Sensor-based assessment of social isolation in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social isolation (SI) is a state of low social interaction with peers associated with various adverse health consequences in older adults living in the community. SI is most often assessed through retrospective self-reports, which can be prone to recall or self-report biases and influenced by stigma. Ambient and wearable sensors have been explored to objectively assess SI based on interactions of a person within the environment and physiological data. However, because this field is in its infancy, there is a lack of clarity regarding the application of sensors and their data in assessing SI and the methods to develop these assessments. To understand the current state of research in sensor-based assessment of SI in older adults living in the community and to make recommendations for the field moving forward, we conducted a scoping review. The aims of the scoping review were to (i) map the types of sensors (and their associated data) that have been used for objective SI assessment, and (ii) identify the methodological approaches used to develop the SI assessment. Using an established scoping review methodology, we identified eight relevant articles. Data from motion sensors and actigraph were commonly applied and compared and correlated with self-report measures in developing objective SI assessments. Variability exists in defining SI, feature extraction and the use of sensors and self-report assessments. Inconsistent definitions and use of various self-report scales for measuring SI create barriers to studying the concept and extracting features to build predictive models. Recommendations include establishing a consistent definition of SI for sensor-based assessment research and development and consider capturing its complexity through innovative domain-specific features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".