SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Predicting disease outcomes from remote monitoring using machine learning: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic conditions cause millions of deaths annually worldwide. Remote patient monitoring using wearable devices and sensors, combined with machine learning (ML), offers promising strategies for disease management. However, diverse methodological approaches and study designs impede comparability and the development of best practice guidelines.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four scientific databases were searched for relevant prospective studies published between 2014 and 2024. Studies had to use ML to predict disease outcomes of chronic conditions in remotely monitored patients. The studies were tagged for characteristics such as health outcomes, dataset, monitored parameters, and algorithms.
resultsFrom 6668 initially identified studies, 76 met inclusion criteria. 73.7% of studies were considered to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to methodological shortcomings in the Analysis domain. Parkinson’s disease was most frequently monitored, followed by diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Wearable devices were the predominant remote sensors, with accelerometer data being the most common parameter. Tree-based algorithms were most frequent, and studies using leave-one-out cross-validation showed significantly higher accuracy. Feature engineering and publication year were also significantly associated with model performance.
conclusionThis review highlights both progress and challenges in applying ML to chronic disease monitoring. While conditions like Parkinson’s, COPD, and diabetes are well-represented, others such as liver and kidney diseases are underexplored. Future research should prioritize standardization of methodologies, model interpretability, and ethical considerations including data privacy and algorithmic fairness. When properly implemented, ML-driven remote monitoring has the potential to enhance patient care, reduce complications, and deepen our understanding of chronic conditions. However, addressing challenges in reproducibility, generalizability, and clinical integration is crucial for advancing the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.