Predicting chronic pain using wearable devices: a scoping review of sensor capabilities, data security, and standards compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Wearable devices offer innovative solutions for chronic pain (CP) management by enabling real-time monitoring and personalized pain control. Although they are increasingly used to monitor pain-related parameters, their potential for predicting CP progression remains underutilized. Current studies focus mainly on correlations between data and pain levels, but rarely use this information for accurate prediction. Objective: This study aims to review recent advancements in wearable technology for CP management, emphasizing the integration of multimodal data, sensor quality, compliance with data security standards, and the effectiveness of predictive models in identifying CP episodes. Methods: A systematic search across six major databases identified studies evaluating wearable devices designed to collect pain-related parameters and predict CP. Data extraction focused on device types, sensor quality, compliance with health standards, and the predictive algorithms employed. Results: Wearable devices show promise in correlating physiological markers with CP, but few studies integrate predictive models. Random Forest and multilevel models have demonstrated consistent performance, while advanced models like Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory have faced challenges with data quality and computational demands. Despite compliance with regulations like General Data Protection Regulation and ISO standards, data security and privacy concerns persist. Additionally, the integration of multimodal data, including physiological, psychological, and demographic factors, remains underexplored, presenting an opportunity to improve prediction accuracy. Conclusions: Future research should prioritize developing robust predictive models, standardizing data protocols, and addressing security and privacy concerns to maximize wearable devices' potential in CP management. Enhancing real-time capabilities and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations will improve clinical applicability, enabling personalized and preventive pain management.
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 | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".