Exploring the Relationship Between Smartphone GPS Patterns and Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers often experience poor quality of life (QOL). Self-report measures are commonly used to quantify QOL of family caregivers but may have limitations such as recall bias and social desirability bias. Variables derived from passively obtained smartphone GPS data are a novel approach to measuring QOL that may overcome these limitations and enable detection of early signs of mental and physical health (PH) deterioration. Objective: This study explored the feasibility of a digital phenotyping approach by assessing participant adherence and examining correlations between smartphone GPS data and QOL levels among family caregivers and patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This was a secondary analysis involving 7 family caregivers and 4 patients with advanced cancer that assessed correlations between GPS sensor data captured by a personally owned smartphone and QOL self-report measures over 12 weeks through linear correlation coefficients. QOL as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health 10 was collected at baseline, 6, and 12 weeks. Using a Beiwe smartphone app, GPS data were collected and processed into variables including total distance, time spent at home, transition time, and number of significant locations. Results: The study identified relevant temporal correlations between QOL and smartphone GPS data across specific time periods. For instance, in terms of PH, associations were observed with the total distance traveled (12 and 13 wk, with r ranging 0.37 to 0.38), time spent at home (-4 to -2 wk, with r ranging from -0.41 to -0.49), and transition time (-4 to -2 wk, with r ranging -0.38 to -0.47). Conclusions: This research offers insights into using passively obtained smartphone GPS data as a novel approach for assessing and monitoring QOL among family caregivers and patients with advanced cancer, presenting potential advantages over traditional self-report measures. The observed correlations underscore the potential of this method to detect early signs of deteriorating mental health and PH, providing opportunities for timely intervention and support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".