Beyond Vital Signs: Emotion-Aware Remote Patient Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote Patient Monitoring systems (RPMs) are becoming increasingly important as the aging populationstruggles to manage chronic illnesses and secure consistent healthcare access. While these systems excel in tracking physical metrics, integrating emotion recognition can bridge the often-overlooked connection between emotional and physical well-being. By identifying emotional responses such as discomfort, distress, or contentment, RPM systems can provide immediate feedback for care adjustments and reveal long-term trends. Subtle shifts in emotional patterns may act as early indicators of mental health conditions linked to chronic diseases or transient emotional stress. Expanding RPMs to include emotion awareness makes care more adaptive and holistic. This review explores how emotion recognition can enhance RPM systems by addressing both physical and emotional health. It examines methods that leverage physiological and behavioral responses to capture emotional states, assessing the advantages, limitations, and applicability of these modalities in RPM settings. By incorporating emotion-aware tools, RPMs have the potential to deliver more comprehensive, responsive, and personalized care, revolutionizing healthcare delivery for diverse patient groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".