Using Indoor Movement Complexity in Smart Homes to Detect Frailty in Older Adults: Multiple-Methods Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The theory of complexity in aging indicates that the complexity of sensor-derived physiological and behavioral signals reflects an older adult's adaptive capacity and, in turn, their frailty. Smart homes with ambient sensors offer a unique opportunity to longitudinally explore the complexity of older adults' indoor movement in a real-world setting. Here, we introduce a computational method to estimate behavior complexity from sensor data. We further conduct a multiple-methods case series to explore the relationship between entropy-measured smart home data complexity and older adult frailty. Objective: This study aims to explore the relationship between entropy-measured ambient sensor data complexity and frailty in independent community-dwelling older adults. Methods: The nature of older adults' indoor movement complexity is measured by quantifying the entropy of smart home data. Overall, 11 cases with persons aged 65 years and older were drawn from an ongoing smart home study to illustrate the method. We assessed weekly frailty for these cases using the Clinical Frailty Scale. For corresponding time ranges, we measured the complexity of smart home data using a fixed-width sliding window and an entropy-based complexity index (Rényi Complexity Index) built on a Universal Sequence Map (USM-Rényi). Descriptive statistics and graphical analysis were used to describe intraindividual frailty and sensor complexity change. Results: The complexity of sensor-observed indoor movement does change over time in older adults as quantified by the computational method. In some individuals, these changes track with health transitions and frailty progression. The trends and monotonicity of complexity trajectories varied between cases. Overall, 3 of the cases demonstrated a negative association between frailty and complexity, while the association was not as clear for the other cases. Conclusions: The complexity of older adults' smart home data is highly diverse. Changes in health and frailty influence indoor movement complexity. Although the findings suggest a relationship between frailty and complexity, confounding factors, such as home layout, visitors, external events, and technology disruptions, may influence sensor signals.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".