MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163031631 · doi:10.2196/81761

Original Article: Randomised open label cross-over pilot study comparing feasibility of S-patch vs 24 hour holter in Frail Older People with Falls (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7163031631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara Rosario, Vern Hsen Tan, Vivian Cantiller Barrera, Hnin Tun Mon, Clara Yi-En Seah, Colin Yeo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen labelOlder peopleQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Falls commonly cause injuries in older adults and can present with syncope or presyncope. Typically, frail older adults with cognitive impairment are underrepresented in research and experience difficulty tolerating conventional ECG monitoring devices. S-Patch is a novel, lightweight dual-lead device designed to provide continuous ECG monitoring for up to 72 hours with minimal interference to daily activities. Objective: This study aimed primarily to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability, and adherence of the S-Patch compared with standard 24-hour Holter monitoring in older adults (aged ≥60 years) presenting with unwitnessed falls, syncope, or near-syncope, as assessed by wear duration, completion rates, and patient-reported experience. The secondary objective of this study was to assess device usability and compare arrhythmia detection rates between the devices in a real-world setting. Methods: This prospective, single-center, randomized, open-label, crossover feasibility pilot study was conducted from March 8, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Participants were randomized 1:1 into group A (Holter followed by S-Patch) or group B (S-Patch followed by Holter), enabling up to 4 days of continuous monitoring. Results: Seventy patients were enrolled, of whom 32 (45.7%) had cognitive impairment, and the majority were frail. Group A participants were older (86.9 vs 82.9 years) with higher use of dementia medications (6/35, 17.1% vs 3/35, 8.6%). Frailty was highly prevalent across the cohort, and fear of falling was significantly greater among frail patients (P=.04). Both devices were well tolerated, with no difference in overall device preference, but S-Patch enabled substantially longer monitoring durations compared to Holter. Mean S-Patch wear time exceeded 60 hours and was significantly longer when the device was applied first (68.8 vs 62.9 h; P=.04), suggesting acceptance and adherence. Importantly, tolerability was maintained in frail patients with cognitive impairment. Arrhythmia detection rates were observed as comparable, with both devices identifying one clinically significant arrhythmia, resulting in pacemaker implantation. Conclusions: S-Patch is a feasible, well-tolerated cardiac monitoring device in frail older adults and those with cognitive impairment. Compared with Holter, S-Patch supported longer continuous monitoring without compromising patient acceptability, an important consideration in real-world clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207