Discovering Behavioral Patterns Using Conversational Technology for In-Home Health and Well-Being Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in conversational AI have created unparalleled opportunities to promote the independence and well-being of older adults, including people living with dementia (PLWD). However, conversational agents have yet to demonstrate a direct impact in supporting target populations at home, particularly with long-term user benefits and clinical utility. We introduce an infrastructure fusing in-home activity data captured by Internet of Things (IoT) technologies with voice interactions using conversational technology (Amazon Alexa). We collect 3103 person-days of voice and environmental data across 14 households with PLWD to identify behavioural patterns. Interactions include an automated well-being questionnaire and 10 topics of interest, identified using topic modelling. Although a significant decrease in conversational technology usage was observed after the novelty phase across the cohort, steady state data acquisition for modelling was sustained. We analyse household activity sequences preceding or following Alexa interactions through pairwise similarity and clustering methods. Our analysis demonstrates the capability to identify individual behavioural patterns, changes in those patterns and the corresponding time periods. We further report that households with PLWD continued using Alexa following clinical events (e.g., hospitalisations), which offers a compelling opportunity for proactive health and well-being data gathering related to medical changes. Results demonstrate the promise of conversational AI in digital health monitoring for ageing and dementia support and offer a basis for tracking health and deterioration as indicated by household activity, which can inform healthcare professionals and relevant stakeholders for timely interventions. Future work will use the bespoke behavioural patterns extracted to create more personalised AI conversations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".