MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410571978 · doi:10.2196/72113

Construction of Personalized Predictive Models for Missed Medication Doses Using Wearable Device Data: Prospective Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4410571978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haru Iino, Hayato Kizaki, Shungo Imai, Satoko Hori

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintObservational studyWearable computerWearable technologyMedicineComputer scienceData scienceInternal medicineWorld Wide WebEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Declining medication adherence remains a critical health care issue, often assessed through unreliable self-reporting methods. Wearable devices (WDs) may offer an objective means to improve adherence monitoring by continuously recording physiological and activity data. Objective: This study aimed to develop and internally validate personalized predictive models, utilizing objective physiological and activity data from WDs, for identifying missed medication doses. Methods: A 30-day prospective observational study was conducted with 8 participants who wore Apple Watches and used a dedicated iOS app. The app collected demographics, medication details, psychological factors, mealtimes, and daily missed dose events. WDs recorded time-series data (ie, activity, heart rate, sleep) at 3-minute intervals. Data were aggregated into 1-hour segments, and lag (6 and 12 h) as well as rolling (24 h) features were generated. Light Gradient Boosting Machine models were constructed for each individual's dosing regimen if the missed dose rate exceeded 20%. Two modeling approaches were compared: a group cross-validation (CV) model that grouped data by day to avoid data leakage from rolling features, and a nonrolling feature model that excluded rolling features and used leave-one-out CV. F1-score, accuracy, recall, and precision were assessed between the 2 models. Results: Of the 15 enrolled participants, 8 completed the study; 4 had a missed dose rate above 20%. In these 4 individuals, the group CV model achieved F1-scores of 0.435 to 0.902, with accuracy ranging from 0.711 to 0.911, recall from 0.278 to 0.822, and a precision of 1.000 for the most robust regimens. The nonrolling feature model yielded F1-scores of 0.667 to 0.910, with accuracy ranging from 0.800 to 0.906, recall from 0.500 to 0.835, and a precision of 1.000. Morning dosing regimens generally showed higher predictive performance than evening or afternoon. Time-series features, particularly those reflecting 6-, 12-, and 24-hour patterns, emerged as key predictors, indicating that physiological and lifestyle variations prior to dosing strongly influenced missed dose events. Conclusions: Personalized predictive models using WD-derived data demonstrated high precision for detecting missed medication doses, especially in morning and evening regimens. These findings underscore the feasibility of employing continuous, objective physiological and activity data from WDs to forecast nonadherence events. Although the sample size was limited, restricting the generalizability of the results, this study demonstrates the potential of WD-based personalized prediction of medication adherence. Future work should involve larger populations for external validation, strategies to improve recall, especially for clinically critical medications, and careful consideration of real-world implementation challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.469
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.059 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207