Wearables research for continuous monitoring of patient outcomes: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of wearable devices for remote health monitoring is a rapidly expanding field. These devices might benefit patients and providers; however, they are not yet widely used in healthcare. This scoping review assesses the current state of the literature on wearable devices for remote health monitoring in non-hospital settings. METHODS: CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until August 5, 2024. We performed citation searching and searched Google Scholar. Studies on wearable devices in an outpatient setting with a clinically relevant, measurable outcome were included and were categorized according to intended use of data: monitoring of existing disease vs. diagnosis of new disease. RESULTS: Eighty studies met eligibility criteria. Most studies used device data to monitor a chronic disease (68/80, 85%), most often neurodegenerative (22/68, 32%). Twelve studies (12/80, 15%) used device data to diagnose new disease, majority being cardiovascular (9/12, 75%). A range of wearable devices were studied with watches and bracelets being most common (50/80, 63%). Only six studies (8%) were randomized controlled trials, four of which (67%) showed evidence of positive clinical impact. Feasibility determinants were inconsistently reported, including compliance (51/80, 64%), patient-reported useability (13/80, 16%), and participant technology literacy (1/80, 1%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for clinical effectiveness of wearable devices remains scant. Heterogeneity across studies in terms of devices, disease targets and monitoring protocols makes data synthesis challenging, especially given the rapid pace of technical innovation. These findings provide direction for future research and implementation of wearable devices in healthcare.
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 | 0.040 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".