Context-Aware Medical Systems within Healthcare Environments: A Systematic Scoping Review to Identify Subdomains and Significant Medical Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context awareness is a field in pervasive computing, which has begun to impact medical systems via an increasing number of healthcare applications that are starting to use context awareness. The present work seeks to determine which contexts are important for medical applications and which domains of context-aware applications exist in healthcare. A systematic scoping review of context-aware medical systems currently used by patients or healthcare providers (inclusion criteria) was conducted between April 2021 and June 2023. A search strategy was designed and applied to Pub Med, EBSCO, IEEE Explore, Wiley, Science Direct, Springer Link, and ACM, articles from the databases were then filtered based on their abstract, and relevant articles were screened using a questionnaire applied to their full texts prior to data extraction. Applications were grouped into context-aware healthcare application domains based on past reviews and screening results. A total of 25 articles passed all screening levels and underwent data extraction. The most common contexts used were user location (8 out of 25 studies), demographic information (6 out of 25 studies), movement status/activity level (7 out of 25 studies), time of day (5 out of 25 studies), phone usage patterns (5 out of 25 studies), lab/vitals (7 out of 25 studies), and patient history data (8 out of 23 studies). Through a systematic review process, the current study determined the key contexts within context-aware healthcare applications that have reached healthcare providers and patients. The present work has illuminated many of the early successful context-aware healthcare applications. Additionally, the primary contexts leveraged by these systems have been identified, allowing future systems to focus on prioritizing the integration of these key contexts.
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 | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".