MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386536253 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3313158

Leveraging Machine Learning for Disease Diagnoses Based on Wearable Devices: A Survey

2023· article· en· W4386536253 on OpenAlexaff
Zhihan Jiang, Vera van Zoest, Weipeng Deng, Edith C.‐H. Ngai, Jiangchuan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsComputer scienceWearable computerSmartwatchWearable technologyPersonalizationHealth careMachine learningArtificial intelligenceModalitiesPopularityMedical diagnosisData scienceHuman–computer interactionComputer securityEmbedded systemMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many countries around the world are facing a shortage of healthcare resources, especially during the post-epidemic era, leading to a dramatic increase in the need for self-detection and self-management of diseases. The popularity of smart wearable devices, such as smartwatches, and the development of machine learning (ML) bring new opportunities for the early detection and management of various prevalent diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes. In this survey, we comprehensively review the articles related to specific diseases or health issues based on small wearable devices and ML. More specifically, we first present an overview of the articles selected and classify them according to their targeted diseases. Then, we summarize their objectives, wearable device and sensor data, ML techniques, and wearing locations. Based on the literature review, we discuss the challenges and propose future directions from the perspectives of privacy concerns, security concerns, transmission latency and reliability, energy consumption, multimodality, multisensor, multidevices, evaluation metrics, explainability, generalization and personalization, social influence, and human factors, aiming to inspire researchers in this field.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207