Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31293244›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

A Combination of Indoor Localization and Wearable Sensor-Based Physical Activity Recognition to Assess Older Patients Undergoing Subacute Rehabilitation: Baseline Study Results.

Ramin Ramezani, Wenhao Zhang, Zhuoer Xie, John Shen, David Elashoff, Pamela Roberts, Annette Stanton, Michelle Eslami, Neil Wenger, Majid Sarrafzadeh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ramin RamezaniCenter for Smart Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9276-6932
Wenhao ZhangCenter for Smart Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6053-6454
Zhuoer XieDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1266-9804
John ShenDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6455-5553
David ElashoffDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-8580
Pamela RobertsDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, California School for Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1675-3782
Annette StantonDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9021-2549
Michelle EslamiRockport Healthcare Services, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4877-3868
Neil WengerDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-3967
Majid SarrafzadehDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8407-8689
Arash NaeimCenter for Smart Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6830-5933

Funding

Sensing in At Risk Populations (SARP): Monitoring performance status, activities of daily living, and independence to promote safe outcomes for elderly patients in rehab, the home and long-term careR01HS024394 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NAEIM, ARASH · 2015 to 2017
$1.5M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024394
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care, in recent years, has made great leaps in integrating wireless technology into traditional models of care. The availability of ubiquitous devices such as wearable sensors has enabled researchers to collect voluminous datasets and harness them in a wide range of health care topics. One of the goals of using on-body wearable sensors has been to study and analyze human activity and functional patterns, thereby predicting harmful outcomes such as falls. It can also be used to track precise individual movements to form personalized behavioral patterns, to standardize the concept of frailty, well-being/independence, etc. Most wearable devices such as activity trackers and smartwatches are equipped with low-cost embedded sensors that can provide users with health statistics. In addition to wearable devices, Bluetooth low-energy sensors known as BLE beacons have gained traction among researchers in ambient intelligence domain. The low cost and durability of newer versions have made BLE beacons feasible gadgets to yield indoor localization data, an adjunct feature in human activity recognition. In the studies by Moatamed et al and the patent application by Ramezani et al, we introduced a generic framework (Sensing At-Risk Population) that draws on the classification of human movements using a 3-axial accelerometer and extracting indoor localization using BLE beacons, in concert.

objectiveThe study aimed to examine the ability of combination of physical activity and indoor location features, extracted at baseline, on a cohort of 154 rehabilitation-dwelling patients to discriminate between subacute care patients who are re-admitted to the hospital versus the patients who are able to stay in a community setting.

methodsWe analyzed physical activity sensor features to assess activity time and intensity. We also analyzed activities with regard to indoor localization. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare demographic variables and sensor feature variables in outcome groups. Random forests were used to build predictive models based on the most significant features.

resultsStanding time percentage (P<.001, d=1.51), laying down time percentage (P<.001, d=1.35), resident room energy intensity (P<.001, d=1.25), resident bed energy intensity (P<.001, d=1.23), and energy percentage of active state (P=.001, d=1.24) are the 5 most statistically significant features in distinguishing outcome groups at baseline. The energy intensity of the resident room (P<.001, d=1.25) was achieved by capturing indoor localization information. Random forests revealed that the energy intensity of the resident room, as a standalone attribute, is the most sensitive parameter in the identification of outcome groups (area under the curve=0.84).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that a combination of indoor localization and physical activity tracking produces a series of features at baseline, a subset of which can better distinguish between at-risk patients that can gain independence versus the patients that are rehospitalized.

Indexed as

ExerciseAgedAged, 80 and overChi-Square DistributionCohort StudiesFemaleFitness TrackersGeriatric AssessmentHumansLos AngelesMaleMiddle AgedRehabilitationWearable Electronic Devicesbluetooth low energy beaconsfitness trackersfrailtymonitoring ambulatoryrehabilitationremote sensing technologysmartwatcheswearable electronic devices

Identifiers

PMID31293244
PMCPMC6652127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.