MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388290460 · doi:10.1186/s12911-023-02350-w

Smartwatches in healthcare medicine: assistance and monitoring; a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4388290460 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Masoumian Hosseini, Seyedeh Toktam Masoumian Hosseini, Karim Qayumi, Shahriar Hosseinzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmartwatchHealth informaticsHealth careMedicineMEDLINEScopusMedical diagnosisTelemedicineCrowdsourcingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWearable computerPublic healthWorld Wide WebNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartwatches have become increasingly popular in recent times because of their capacity to track different health indicators, including heart rate, patterns of sleep, and physical movements. This scoping review aims to explore the utilisation of smartwatches within the healthcare sector. According to Arksey and O'Malley's methodology, an organised search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC and Google Scholar. In our search strategy, 761 articles were returned. The exclusion/inclusion criteria were applied. Finally, 35 articles were selected for extracting data. These included six studies on stress monitoring, six on movement disorders, three on sleep tracking, three on blood pressure, two on heart disease, six on covid pandemic, three on safety and six on validation. The use of smartwatches has been found to be effective in diagnosing the symptoms of various diseases. In particular, smartwatches have shown promise in detecting heart diseases, movement disorders, and even early signs of COVID-19. Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that there is an ongoing discussion concerning the reliability of smartwatch diagnoses within healthcare systems. Despite the potential advantages offered by utilising smartwatches for disease detection, it is imperative to approach their data interpretation with prudence. The discrepancies in detection between smartwatches and their algorithms have important implications for healthcare use. The accuracy and reliability of the algorithms used are crucial, as well as high accuracy in detecting changes in health status by the smartwatches themselves. This calls for the development of medical watches and the creation of AI-hospital assistants. These assistants will be designed to help with patient monitoring, appointment scheduling, and medication management tasks. They can educate patients and answer common questions, freeing healthcare providers to focus on more complex tasks.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations168
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207