MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117585048 · doi:10.2196/81580

Embedding Passive Monitoring Into Global Health and Longitudinal Patient Care

2025· article· en· W7117585048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angelika Papanicolaou, Laura Gaetano, Olivia Yu, Graham Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote patient monitoringHealth careDigital healthmHealthPatient dataWirelessWearable computerPoint of careGlobal health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlabelled: A multitude of digital health tools have been developed to monitor, record, and predict health-related events in healthy subjects and patients. In clinical settings, although promising advances have resulted in near-term benefits, their use in longer-term studies is often limited due to the level of friction and burden imposed on the subject, often requiring active engagement by the patient with digital devices and/or its interfaces. Herein, we outline how smart ring technologies could form the anchor point for passive patient monitoring systems by offering a near-ideal compromise between device form factor and data capturing capacity. By using wireless technologies, such devices could form integral components of a hub-and-spoke health monitoring system, feeding data to cloud-based patient electronic health records and allowing push-pull actions through bidirectional communication. Such capabilities could have immediate utility in the longitudinal monitoring of patients diagnosed with slow progressing disease such as cardiovascular and neurodegenerative conditions. Moreover, if integrated through provisioned federated wireless networks, the technology could become components of global health care. To be successful, such a grand challenge would naturally require multiple technological, financial, and data privacy obstacles to be overcome. In support of this vision, we outline practical considerations for the development of such systems for specific applications and potential next steps for implementation.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.501 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→