Meta-Review of Wearable Devices for Healthcare in the Metaverse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in leveraging the metaverse to enhance community engagement and healthcare. This article provides a comprehensive examination of wearable devices and sensors utilized within immersive environments to improve well-being and healthcare outcomes. We categorize the healthcare application domains that employ wearable devices and identify commonly used devices and sensors based on a thorough review of the literature. Our study offers a detailed summary of these applications, highlighting their potential to enhance overall quality of life through remote monitoring, rehabilitation, and chronic disease management. Furthermore, we address existing research gaps and challenges in this field, offering insights for future research directions. This meta-review emphasizes the need for further exploration in the rapidly evolving domain of wearable healthcare technologies within the metaverse, presenting an overview of the current state of wearable devices in healthcare and underscoring their significance in advancing healthcare delivery and outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it