ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Real-time tracking and detection of patient conditions in the intelligent m-Health monitoring system.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI, foundation models and large language models in radiation therapy physics: Clinical applications, challenges, and future directions.Medical physics · 2026Review
- Transforming Clinical Information Systems: Empowering Healthcare through Telemedicine, Data Science, and Artificial Intelligence Applications.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to help patients monitor their personal health in real time, this paper proposes an intelligent mobile health monitoring system and establishes a corresponding health network to track and process patients' physical activity and other health-related factors in real time. Performance was analyzed. The experimental results show that after comparing the accuracy, delay time, error range, efficiency, and energy utilization of Im-HMS and existing UCD systems, it is found that the accuracy of Im-HMS is mostly between 98 and 100%, while the accuracy of UCD is mostly between 98 and 100%. Most of the systems are between 91 and 97%; in terms of delay comparison, the delay of the Im-HMS system is between 18 and 39 ms, which is far lower than the lowest value of the UCD system of 84 ms, and the Im-HMS is significantly better than the existing UCD system; the error range of Im-HMS is mainly between 0.2 and 1.4, while the error range of UCD system is mainly between -2 and 14; and in terms of efficiency and energy utilization, Im-HMS values are higher than those of UCD system. In general, the Im-HMS system proposed in this study is more accurate than UCD system and has lower delay, smaller error, and higher efficiency, and energy utilization is more efficient than UCD system, which is of great significance for mobile health monitoring in practical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.