In-Home Positioning for Remote Home Health Monitoring in Older Adults: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the growing proportion of Canadians aged >65 years, smart home and health monitoring technologies may help older adults manage chronic disease and support aging in place. Localization technologies have been used to support the management of frailty and dementia by detecting activities in the home. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize the clinical evidence for in-home localization technologies, review the acceptability of monitoring, and summarize the range of technologies being used for in-home localization. METHODS: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology was followed. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched with 2 reviewers performing screening, extractions, and quality assessments. RESULTS: A total of 1935 articles were found, with 36 technology-focused articles and 10 articles that reported on patient outcomes being included. From moderate- to high-quality studies, 2 studies reported mixed results on identifying mild cognitive dementia or frailty, while 4 studies reported mixed results on the acceptability of localization technology. Technologies included ambient sensors; Bluetooth- or Wi-Fi-received signal strength; localizer tags using radio frequency identification, ultra-wideband, Zigbee, or GPS; and inertial measurement units with localizer tags. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of localization remains mixed, with in-home sensors not being able to differentiate between older adults with healthy cognition and older adults with mild cognitive impairment. However, frailty was detectable using in-home sensors. Acceptability is moderately positive, particularly with ambient sensors. Localization technologies can achieve room detection accuracies up to 92% and linear accuracies of up to 5-20 cm that may be promising for future clinical applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022339845; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339845.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".