Smartwatches in healthcare medicine: assistance and monitoring; a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it