The Cooperation Between Nurses and a New Digital Colleague “AI-Driven Lifestyle Monitoring” in Long-Term Care for Older Adults: Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology has a major impact on the way nurses work. Data-driven technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), have particularly strong potential to support nurses in their work. However, their use also introduces ambiguities. An example of such a technology is AI-driven lifestyle monitoring in long-term care for older adults, based on data collected from ambient sensors in an older adult's home. Designing and implementing this technology in such an intimate setting requires collaboration with nurses experienced in long-term and older adult care. This viewpoint paper emphasizes the need to incorporate nurses and the nursing perspective into every stage of designing, using, and implementing AI-driven lifestyle monitoring in long-term care settings. It is argued that the technology will not replace nurses, but rather act as a new digital colleague, complementing the humane qualities of nurses and seamlessly integrating into nursing workflows. Several advantages of such a collaboration between nurses and technology are highlighted, as are potential risks such as decreased patient empowerment, depersonalization, lack of transparency, and loss of human contact. Finally, practical suggestions are offered to move forward with integrating the digital colleague.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".