Data Preprocessing Techniques for AI and Machine Learning Readiness: Scoping Review of Wearable Sensor Data in Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable sensors are increasingly being explored in health care, including in cancer care, for their potential in continuously monitoring patients. Despite their growing adoption, significant challenges remain in the quality and consistency of data collected from wearable sensors. Moreover, preprocessing pipelines to clean, transform, normalize, and standardize raw data have not yet been fully optimized. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a scoping review of preprocessing techniques used on raw wearable sensor data in cancer care, specifically focusing on methods implemented to ensure their readiness for artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) applications. We sought to understand the current landscape of approaches for handling issues, such as noise, missing values, normalization or standardization, and transformation, as well as techniques for extracting meaningful features from raw sensor outputs and converting them into usable formats for subsequent AI/ML analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify potentially relevant studies for this review. The eligibility criteria included (1) mobile health and wearable sensor studies in cancer, (2) written and published in English, (3) published between January 2018 and December 2023, (4) full text available rather than abstracts, and (5) original studies published in peer-reviewed journals or conferences. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2147 articles, of which 20 (0.93%) met the inclusion criteria. Three major categories of preprocessing techniques were identified: data transformation (used in 12/20, 60% of selected studies), data normalization and standardization (used in 8/20, 40% of the selected studies), and data cleaning (used in 8/20, 40% of the selected studies). Transformation methods aimed to convert raw data into more informative formats for analysis, such as by segmenting sensor streams or extracting statistical features. Normalization and standardization techniques usually normalize the range of features to improve comparability and model convergence. Cleaning methods focused on enhancing data reliability by handling artifacts like missing values, outliers, and inconsistencies. CONCLUSIONS: While wearable sensors are gaining traction in cancer care, realizing their full potential hinges on the ability to reliably translate raw outputs into high-quality data suitable for AI/ML applications. This review found that researchers are using various preprocessing techniques to address this challenge, but there remains a lack of standardized best practices. Our findings suggest a pressing need to develop and adopt uniform data quality and preprocessing workflows of wearable sensor data that can support the breadth of cancer research and varied patient populations. Given the diverse preprocessing techniques identified in the literature, there is an urgency for a framework that can guide researchers and clinicians in preparing wearable sensor data for AI/ML applications. For the scoping review as well as our research, we propose a general framework for preprocessing wearable sensor data, designed to be adaptable across different disease settings, moving beyond cancer care.
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 | 0.027 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".