Using a Quality-Controlled Dataset From ViSi Mobile Monitoring for Analyzing Posture Patterns of Hospitalized Patients: Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: ViSi Mobile has the capability of monitoring a patient's posture continuously during hospitalization. Analysis of ViSi telemetry data enables researchers and health care providers to quantify an individual patient's movement and investigate collective patterns of many patients. However, erroneous values can exist in routinely collected ViSi telemetry data. Data must be scrutinized to remove erroneous records before statistical analysis. Objective: The objectives of this study were to (1) develop a data cleaning procedure for a 1-year inpatient ViSi posture dataset, (2) consolidate posture codes into categories, (3) derive concise summary statistics from the continuous monitoring data, and (4) study types of patient posture habits using summary statistics of posture duration and transition frequency. Methods: This study examined the 2019 inpatient ViSi posture records from Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center. First, 2 types of errors, record overlap and time inconsistency, were identified. An automated procedure was designed to search all records for these errors. A data cleaning procedure removed erroneous records. Second, data preprocessing was conducted. Each patient's categorical time series was simplified by consolidating the 185 ViSi codes into 5 categories (Lying, Reclined, Upright, Unknown, User-defined). A majority vote process was applied to remove bursts of short duration. Third, statistical analysis was conducted. For each patient, summary statistics were generated to measure average time duration of each posture and rate of posture transitions during the whole day and separately during daytime and nighttime. A k-means clustering analysis was performed to divide the patients into subgroups objectively. Results: The analysis used a sample of 690 patients, with a median of 3 days of extensive ViSi monitoring per patient. The median of posture durations was 10.2 hours/day for Lying, 8.0 hours/day for Reclined, and 2.5 hours/day for Upright. Lying had similar percentages of patients in low and high durations. Reclined showed a decrease in patients for higher durations. Upright had its peak at 0-2 hours, with a decrease for higher durations. Scatter plots showed that patients could be divided into several subgroups with different posture habits. This was reinforced by the k-means analysis, which identified an active subgroup and two sedentary ones with different resting styles. Conclusions: Using a 1-year ViSi dataset from routine inpatient monitoring, we derived summary statistics of posture duration and posture transitions for each patient and analyzed the summary statistics to identify patterns in the patient population. This analysis revealed several types of patient posture habits. Before analysis, we also developed methodology to clean and preprocess routinely collected inpatient ViSi monitoring data, which is a major contribution of this study. The procedure developed for data cleaning and preprocessing can have broad application to other monitoring systems used in hospitals.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".