Case report: dynamic personalized physiological monitoring in lung cancer using wearable data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pretreatment prognostication, on-treatment monitoring, and early detection of physiological symptoms are considerable challenges in cancer. We describe the feasibility of high-resolution wearable data (steps per day, walking speed) to longitudinally profile physiological trajectories extracted from Apple Health data in three patients with lung cancer from diagnosis through cancer treatment after obtaining informed consent. We used descriptive statistics to describe our approach of building longitudinal physiological profiles. The wearable data monitoring period ranged from 58 to 135 weeks, with between 34,319 and 103,535 distinct digital physiological measures collected during this period-the equivalent to 41 measures per day/patient. Longitudinal profiling revealed that wearable data accurately captured physiological changes linked with clinical events such as surgery and hospitalizations as well as initiation (and cessation) of systemic cancer treatment in all three patients. These findings suggest that wearable devices could play a critical role in the management of lung cancer, although larger studies are needed to confirm these preliminary observations and validate their generalizability. Wearable devices hold significant promise for the development of personalized "digital biomarkers," which may enhance risk stratification and management in oncology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".