Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 117 references

More Modality, More AI: Exploring Design Opportunities of AI-Based Multi-modal Remote Monitoring Technologies for Early Detection of Mental Health Sequelae in Youth Concussion Patients

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A clinician-facing dashboard that fuses wearable sleep and activity data, LLM-based conversational agent self-reports, and AI risk score prediction can help concussion clinicians detect mental health sequelae in youth patients earlier and…

desk verdict A careful design study worth reviewing, but the AI risk-prediction module is an unvalidated assumption rather than a demonstrated component. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03732 v2 pith:PLX5X6FZ submitted 2025-02-06 cs.HC

Bingsheng Yao , Menglin Zhao , Yuling Sun , Weidan Cao , Changchang Yin , Stephen Intille , Xuhai Xu , Ping Zhang
show 2 more authors
Jingzhen Yang Dakuo Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords youthconcussionmentalhealthsequelaeremotepatientmonitoringartificialintelligenceclinician-facingdashboardconversationalagentswearabledevicesriskprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a clinician-facing dashboard combining three AI-based remote monitoring technologies can help concussion clinicians detect mental health sequelae—anxiety, depression, and suicidality—in youth patients earlier and support their clinical decisions. The claim is built from a formative study with six concussion clinicians, a preliminary interface design, and an evaluation session with the same clinicians. The resulting design integrates wearable sleep and activity tracking, LLM-powered conversational agents that collect patient self-reports at home, and an AI risk score predicting the likelihood of developing mental health sequelae. If the design works as intended, clinicians would gain a continuous window into patients' at-home mental health signals instead of relying on recall and infrequent visits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-modal AI-RPM dashboard, a clinician-facing interface that fuses three data streams: a sleep and physical activities module fed by wearables, a self-report symptoms module fed by LLM-based conversational agents, and an AI risk score prediction module that estimates the probability of developing mental health sequelae within a selectable timeframe (default four weeks). The dashboard also includes a questionnaire results module for GAD-7, PHQ-9, and PCSS scores, plus a feature-contribution display showing which inputs drive the AI risk score. The key mechanism is the combination of objective wearable data with subjective conversational self-reports and a predictive score, all presented with transparent data sourcing and severity and duration indicators to keep cognitive load low for clinicians.

What would settle it

A prospective validation study would settle the claim: deploy the AI risk score module on a cohort of youth concussion patients, compute predictions at the first clinical visit, and compare them against outcomes such as clinical diagnosis of anxiety, depression, or suicidality within 90 days. If the model's discrimination is no better than chance, or if clinicians using the dashboard show no reduction in time-to-detection or referral delays compared with standard care, the central AI feature would be misleading.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that integrating three AI-driven remote monitoring modalities into one clinician-facing dashboard—wearable sleep and activity data, LLM-based conversational agents for patient self-reporting, and AI risk score prediction for mental health sequelae—will help concussion clinicians detect anxiety, depression, and suicidality earlier and support timely decisions such as scheduling follow-ups or referrals. The authors ground this claim in interviews with six specialized concussion clinicians, who reported challenges in collecting reliable at-home mental health data, communicating about sensitive issues, and verifying treatment compliance. They then designed a preliminary interface, gathered clinician feedback, and refined it into a complete dashboard with features such as data-source transparency, symptom severity and duration indicators, and a four-week default risk timeframe aligned with the acute recovery phase. The paper frames this as a user-centered design template for AI-RPM systems in youth concussion care.

Load-bearing premise

The dashboard's value depends on the assumption that the AI risk score for mental health sequelae is accurate enough to support real clinical decisions in this youth concussion population; the paper cites an existing model with 88.2% accuracy but does not implement or validate a local model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clinicians could get real-time alerts about sleep, activity, or self-reported emotional changes between visits, allowing earlier follow-up or referral.
  • AI risk scores could serve as a communication tool with families, making mental health concerns concrete and reducing stigma.
  • The feature-contribution display could help clinicians identify modifiable factors like sleep compliance and tailor treatment plans.
  • The four-week default risk timeframe matches the acute concussion window, so decisions about persisting symptoms could be accelerated.
  • The design could extend to other pediatric conditions where remote monitoring of mental health sequelae is needed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the three-stage design process could serve as a template for co-designing AI-RPM systems in other sensitive youth health contexts, such as chronic illness or gender-affirming care.
  • The paper leaves the AI risk score unvalidated locally; a natural extension is to train a model on a health system's own EHR data and test whether the cited 88.2% accuracy holds in this population.
  • Clinicians' conditional enthusiasm about the risk score suggests adoption hinges on false-alert calibration; future work could test alert thresholds with clinicians in scenario-based evaluations.
  • If continuous at-home monitoring becomes routine, referral patterns may shift earlier, which would be a testable change in clinical practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a three-stage human-centered design study with six U.S. concussion clinicians. In a formative interview stage, the authors identify three challenges in remotely monitoring youth concussion patients at risk of mental health sequelae: tracking at-home mental-health information, communicating about mental health with patients and families, and assessing compliance with recommendations. Based on these challenges, they propose a preliminary clinician-facing dashboard that integrates three AI-driven modalities (wearable sleep/activity tracking, an LLM-based conversational agent for self-report symptoms, and an AI risk score prediction module), and they then evaluate this preliminary design with the same six clinicians in 10-minute sessions. The feedback is used to produce a refined system design (Fig. 1) with modules for sleep/physical activity, self-report symptoms, questionnaire results, and AI risk score prediction. The paper's central claim is that this multi-modal AI-RPM dashboard concept, grounded in clinicians' needs, offers a usable design template for earlier detection of mental health sequelae in youth concussion patients. The paper explicitly states in Section 8 that no functional prototype was built and no effectiveness evaluation was conducted.

Significance. If accepted as a design-study contribution, the paper provides a useful and potentially falsifiable template for future AI-RPM systems in a clinical population that is underserved by existing remote monitoring research. The qualitative method is transparent: direct quotes support each derived challenge, the iterative design loop is clearly described, and the limitations section is unusually candid about the absence of a prototype and the restricted sample. The paper also gives a concrete instantiation of human-centered AI design principles in a high-stakes, time-constrained clinical workflow, which is a stated gap in the CSCW literature. The significance is moderated, however, by the fact that the refined design has not been tested with any functional implementation, by the self-confirming nature of evaluating the design with the same clinicians who supplied the formative needs data, and by the reliance on an externally cited AI risk model without local validation. These issues limit the strength of the central design claims but do not erase the value of the derived design considerations as an exploratory contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1.3, §5.2.1, §6.5] The AI Risk Score Prediction module is a load-bearing component of the proposed system, and its utility is assumed rather than demonstrated. Section 4.1.3 supports the module by citing Dabek et al. [30] for 'high accuracy' AI prediction of mental health sequelae, but the refined design in §6.5 changes the default prediction horizon to four weeks, whereas the cited model is described in the related work as predicting within 90 days. The manuscript does not show that Dabek et al.'s model transfers to the youth (ages 11–17), the multimodal features (wearable, LLM-CA summaries, EHR), or the four-week timeframe. The clinicians' acceptance of the module is explicitly conditional on accuracy (P5: helpful 'if the AI risk score prediction module provides accurate data'), and Section 5.2.5 records concerns about false suicidal-ideation alerts. Because the paper's third conclusion (Section 9) recommends 'leveraging AI risk prediction in detecting concealed or worsening mental health sequelae,' the manuscript needs either some evidence of local feasibility/validation, a risk analysis of model mismatch, or a clear reframing of the module as an untested design hypothesis rather than a validated capability.
  2. [§5, §8] The evaluation of the preliminary design is partly self-confirming. The same six clinicians who articulated their needs in the formative study (Section 3) were then shown preliminary designs derived from those needs in 10-minute sessions (Section 5.1) and asked for feedback; the refined design (Fig. 1) was not itself evaluated. This design does not provide independent evidence that the derived challenges, design considerations, or the final interface would be endorsed by other clinicians or would improve decision-making in practice. Section 8 appropriately acknowledges that no functional prototype or effectiveness evaluation was conducted, but the framing in the contributions and conclusion implies a stronger validation than the evidence supports. The authors should either temper the language throughout (e.g., replace 'validated' or 'supported design' with 'clinician-informed design proposal') or add an explicit independent evaluation with a different set of clinicians, ideally with an interactive prototype, before claiming that the design template is ready for deployment.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1] The Sleep and Physical Activities module is referred to as '(Fig. 2 B)', but Figure 2's caption lists the self-report symptoms module as (B) and the sleep and physical activities module as (C); the callout should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix B] In the evaluation session script, item (1) states 'This section (Fig.1) shows the probability of mental health sequelae within the next 15 days'; the evaluation was conducted on the preliminary design (Fig. 2), so the figure cross-reference is inconsistent and should be aligned.
  3. [§6.5 and elsewhere] There are minor typographical errors, including 'imeframe' for 'timeframe' in §6.5 and 'mentoined' for 'mentioned' in §3.2.2. Also, the final line of the manuscript ('Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009') appears to be a stale template and should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the same-clinician formative/evaluation loop is a validity limitation, and the AI-risk accuracy assumption is an external, unvalidated input rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative HCI design study: formative interviews with six clinicians yield challenges; from these, the authors propose design considerations and a preliminary dashboard; the same clinicians give feedback; the design is revised. No quantitative prediction is fitted and then reported as validation, so there is no equation-level reduction of an output to an input. The AI Risk Score Prediction module is presented as a design concept; its accuracy is imported from an external prior model (Dabek et al. [30]) and is not locally implemented or tested. That is an unvalidated enabling assumption and a real correctness risk, but it is not circular because the cited model is external and independent of this paper's own derivation. Several references include the present authors ([25], [60], [96], [104], [105]), but these are background examples of existing AI-RPM techniques and are not the sole or load-bearing justification for the paper's central design claim; the paper also cites independent work for the same capabilities. The main methodological limitation is that the same six clinicians supplied the needs and then evaluated the design built on those needs (Section 5.1: 'We conducted an evaluation study with the same six clinicians from our formative study'), which makes the positive feedback partly self-confirming. Section 8 further states that the refined system 'has not yet been further evaluated ... to assess its effectiveness and usability.' This weakens the strength of the claim that clinicians 'underscored the value' of the system and the external validity of the design, but it is a limitation of validation rather than a circular derivation of the paper's central design contribution. Overall, no significant circularity is present; minor self-citations are non-load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no physical entities; the invented entities are two proposed dashboard capabilities (AI risk score and LLM-based conversational agent) that are assumed functional based on cited work. Neither is implemented or validated here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AI risk prediction for post-concussion mental health sequelae can achieve high accuracy in the target population
    Section 4.1.3 invokes Dabek et al. [30] for 'high accuracy' AI predictions, but no local model is built or validated in this paper. The AI risk score module's usefulness depends on this.
  • domain assumption LLM-based conversational agents can elicit honest mental health disclosures from youth concussion patients
    Section 4.1.2 cites one study on children's perception of agents [89] and clinicians' speculation (P6), but no evidence from actual youth patients is collected.
  • domain assumption Wearable devices provide accurate sleep and heart rate data in adolescents and patients will wear them consistently
    Section 4.1.1 assumes smartwatch data availability and reliability; no pilot data from the target population is included.
  • ad hoc to paper Six US-based concussion clinicians are representative of the broader population of concussion clinicians
    The study relies on convenience sampling of six participants (Section 3.1, Table 1) and claims thematic saturation without formal saturation testing.
invented entities (2)
  • AI Risk Score Prediction module
    purpose: Displays a probability (0-100%) of developing mental health sequelae to guide clinician decisions.
    No underlying model is implemented or validated in this paper; the feature is a mockup component relying on cited prior work.
  • LLM-based conversational agent module
    purpose: Collects and summarizes patients' self-reported mental health symptoms at home.
    The CA is proposed and illustrated but not implemented; its assumed effectiveness rests on prior studies and clinician speculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of More Modality, More AI: Exploring Design Opportunities of AI-Based Multi-modal Remote Monitoring Technologies for Early Detection of Mental Health Sequelae in Youth Concussion Patients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLX5X6FZ

@misc{pith2026250203732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: More Modality, More AI: Exploring Design Opportunities of AI-Based Multi-modal Remote Monitoring Technologies for Early Detection of Mental Health Sequelae in Youth Concussion Patients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLX5X6FZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03732}
}
read the original abstract

Anxiety, depression, and suicidality are common mental health sequelae following concussion in youth patients, often exacerbating concussion symptoms and prolonging recovery. Despite the critical need for early detection of these mental health symptoms, clinicians often face challenges in accurately collecting patients' mental health data and making clinical decision-making in a timely manner. Today's remote patient monitoring (RPM) technologies offer opportunities to objectively monitor patients' activities, but they were not specifically designed for youth concussion patients; moreover, the large amount of data collected by RPM technologies may also impose significant workloads on clinicians to keep up with and use the data. To address these gaps, we employed a three-stage study consisting of a formative study, interface design, and design evaluation. We first conducted a formative study through semi-structured interviews with six highly professional concussion clinicians and identified clinicians' key challenges in remotely collecting patient information and accessing patient treatment compliance. Subsequently, we proposed preliminary clinician-facing interface designs with the integration of AI-based RPM technologies (AI-RPM), followed by design evaluation sessions with highly professional concussion clinicians. Clinicians underscored the value of integrating multi-modal AI-RPM technologies to support their decision-making while emphasizing the importance of customizable interfaces through collaborative design and multiple responsible design considerations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Refined AI-RPM system designed to support concussion clinicians in mental health monitoring: (A) patient list, (B) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The preliminary system design based on concussion clinicians’ challenges and needs: (A) AI risk score prediction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Chia-Fang Chung, Kristin Dew, Allison Cole, Jasmine Zia, James Fogarty, Julie A Kientz, and Sean A Munson. 2016. Boundary negotiating artifacts in personal informatics: patient-provider collaboration with patient-generated data. In Pro- ceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 770–786

    2016

  2. [1]

    Ahmed Abdulaal, Aatish Patel, Ahmed Al-Hindawi, Esmita Charani, Saleh A Alqahtani, Gary W Davies, Nabeela Mughal, and Luke Stephen Prockter Moore

  3. [2]

    Defense Health Agency. 2024. Progressive return to activity: Primary care for acute concussion management . U.S. Department of Defense. https: //www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Publications/2024/02/23/Progressive- Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yao and Zhao et al. Return-to-Activity-Primary-Care-for-Acute-Concussion-Management Acc...

    2024

  4. [3]

    Bouatmane Ahmed, Daaif Abdelaziz, and Bousselham Abdelmajid. 2024. Ad- vancements in Cardiotoxicity Detection and Assessment through Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Review. In 2024 4th International Conference on Innovative Research in Applied Science, Engineering and Technology (IRASET) . IEEE, 1–8

    2024

  5. [4]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  6. [5]

    Anna Markella Antoniadi, Yuhan Du, Yasmine Guendouz, Lan Wei, Claudia Mazo, Brett A Becker, and Catherine Mooney. 2021. Current challenges and future opportunities for XAI in machine learning-based clinical decision support systems: a systematic review. Applied Sciences 11, 11 (2021), 5088

    2021

  7. [6]

    American Psychiatric Association. 2023. Stigma and Discrimination. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/stigma- and-discrimination Accessed: 2025-03-21

    2023

  8. [7]

    Mirza Mansoor Baig, Hamid GholamHosseini, Aasia A Moqeem, Farhaan Mirza, and Maria Lindén. 2017. A systematic review of wearable patient monitoring systems–current challenges and opportunities for clinical adoption. Journal of medical systems 41 (2017), 1–9

    2017

Show all 117 references
  1. [8]

    Keely Barnes, Heidi Sveistrup, Mark Bayley, Mary Egan, Martin Bilodeau, Michel Rathbone, Monica Taljaard, and Shawn Marshall. 2024. Clinician-prioritized measures to use in a remote concussion assessment: delphi study.JMIR Formative Research 8 (2024), e47246

    2024

  2. [9]

    This machine is for the aides

    Vince Bartle, Liam Albright, and Nicola Dell. 2023. " This machine is for the aides": tailoring voice assistant design to home health care work. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2023

  3. [10]

    a second voice

    Vince Bartle, Janice Lyu, Freesoul El Shabazz-Thompson, Yunmin Oh, An- gela Anqi Chen, Yu-Jan Chang, Kenneth Holstein, and Nicola Dell. 2022. “a second voice”: Investigating opportunities and challenges for interactive voice assistants to support home health aides. InProceedin...

    2022

  4. [11]

    Gemma L Bate, Cameron Kirk, Rana ZU Rehman, Yu Guan, Alison J Yarnall, Silvia Del Din, and Rachael A Lawson. 2023. The Role of Wearable Sensors to Monitor Physical Activity and Sleep Patterns in Older Adult Inpatients: A Structured Review. Sensors 23, 10 (2023), 4881

    2023

  5. [12]

    Emma Beede, Elizabeth Baylor, Fred Hersch, Anna Iurchenko, Lauren Wilcox, Paisan Ruamviboonsuk, and Laura M Vardoulakis. 2020. A human-centered evaluation of a deep learning system deployed in clinics for the detection of diabetic retinopathy. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI co...

    2020

  6. [13]

    Casey C Bennett, Thomas W Doub, and Rebecca Selove. 2012. EHRs connect research and practice: Where predictive modeling, artificial intelligence, and clinical decision support intersect. Health Policy and Technology 1, 2 (2012), 105–114

    2012

  7. [14]

    Adam Bohr and Kaveh Memarzadeh. 2020. The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications. In Artificial Intelligence in healthcare. Elsevier, 25–60

    2020

  8. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. American Psycho- logical Association

    2012

  9. [16]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  10. [17]

    David A Brent and Jeffrey Max. 2017. Psychiatric sequelae of concussions. Current psychiatry reports 19 (2017), 1–8

    2017

  11. [18]

    Brian L Brooks, Vickie Plourde, Miriam H Beauchamp, Ken Tang, Keith Owen Yeates, Michelle Keightley, Peter Anderson, Naddley Désiré, Nick Barrowman, Roger Zemek, et al . 2019. Predicting psychological distress after pediatric concussion. Journal of neurotrauma 36, 5 (2019), 679–685

    2019

  12. [19]

    Mersine A Bryan, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, R Dawn Comstock, Frederick Rivara, et al. 2016. Sports-and recreation-related concussions in US youth. Pediatrics 138, 1 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Carrie J Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S Corrado, Martin C Stumpe, et al

  14. [21]

    Carrie J Cai, Samantha Winter, David Steiner, Lauren Wilcox, and Michael Terry

  15. [22]

    James D Carson, Katherine E Healey, and Pierre Frémont. 2021. Using the PHQ- 9 to identify and manage depressive symptoms in patients with sport-related concussion. Canadian family physician 67, 3 (2021), 183–184

    2021

  16. [23]

    NEJM Catalyst. 2018. What is telehealth? NEJM Catalyst 4, 1 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Hello AI

    " Hello AI": uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for human-AI collaborative decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  18. [25]

    Szeyi Chan, Shihan Fu, Jiachen Li, Bingsheng Yao, Smit Desai, Mirjana Prpa, and Dakuo Wang. 2024. Human and llm-based voice assistant interaction: An analytical framework for user verbal and nonverbal behaviors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16465 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Tirtha Chanda, Katja Hauser, Sarah Hobelsberger, Tabea-Clara Bucher, Ca- rina Nogueira Garcia, Christoph Wies, Harald Kittler, Philipp Tschandl, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent, Sebastian Podlipnik, et al . 2024. Dermatologist-like ex- plainable AI enhances trust and confidence in ...

    2024

  20. [27]

    Amanda K Ceniti, Sakina J Rizvi, and Sidney H Kennedy. 2022. Psychological and mental health sequelae of concussion: prevalence, treatment recommenda- tions, novel biomarkers, and diagnostic challenges. In Tackling the Concussion Epidemic: A Bench to Bedside Approach . Springe...

    2022

  21. [28]

    Gary S Collins and Karel GM Moons. 2019. Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. The Lancet 393, 10181 (2019), 1577–1579

    2019

  22. [29]

    Daniel J Corwin, Melissa Godfrey, Kristy B Arbogast, Joseph J Zorc, Douglas J Wiebe, Jeremy J Michel, Ian Barnett, Kelsy M Stenger, Lindsey M Calandra, Justin Cobb, et al. 2024. Using mobile health to expedite access to specialty care for youth presenting to the emergency depa...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Y Denekamp, O Scott, E Jacobson, J Meyerovitch, R Goldman, H Avner-Cohen, F Antebi, and M Sherf. 2007. Clinical decision support systems for addressing information needs of physicians. Isr Med Assoc J 9, 11 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Duarte Dias and João Paulo Silva Cunha. 2018. Wearable health devices—vital sign monitoring, systems and technologies. Sensors 18, 8 (2018), 2414

    2018

  25. [33]

    Filip Dabek, Peter Hoover, Kendra Jorgensen-Wagers, Tim Wu, and Jesus J Caban

  26. [34]

    Catherine C Donahue, Katherine L Smulligan, Mathew J Wingerson, Joshua R Kniss, Stacey L Simon, Julie C Wilson, and David R Howell. 2024. Feasibility of at-Home Sleep Monitoring in Adolescents with and without Concussion.Nature and Science of Sleep (2024), 2257–2268

    2024

  27. [35]

    Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 8 (2004), 19–30

    2004

  28. [36]

    El-Bakry, and Samir Abdelrazek

    Nora El-Rashidy, Shaker El-Sappagh, SM Riazul Islam, Hazem M. El-Bakry, and Samir Abdelrazek. 2021. Mobile health in remote patient monitoring for chronic diseases: Principles, trends, and challenges. Diagnostics 11, 4 (2021), 607

    2021

  29. [37]

    Catherine Dinh-Le, Rachel Chuang, Sara Chokshi, and Devin Mann. 2019. Wear- able health technology and electronic health record integration: scoping review and future directions. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 7, 9 (2019), e12861

    2019

  30. [38]

    Riccardo Fogliato, Shreya Chappidi, Matthew Lungren, Paul Fisher, Diane Wil- son, Michael Fitzke, Mark Parkinson, Eric Horvitz, Kori Inkpen, and Besmira Nushi. 2022. Who goes first? Influences of human-AI workflow on decision mak- ing in clinical imaging. In Proceedings of the...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Michael Fralick, Eric Sy, Adiba Hassan, Matthew J Burke, Elizabeth Mostofsky, and Todd Karsies. 2019. Association of concussion with the risk of suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA neurology 76, 2 (2019), 144–151

    2019

  32. [40]

    Souci Frissa, Stephani L Hatch, Nicola T Fear, Sarah Dorrington, Laura Goodwin, and Matthew Hotopf. 2016. Challenges in the retrospective assessment of trauma: comparing a checklist approach to a single item trauma experience screening question. Bmc Psychiatry 16 (2016), 1–9

    2016

  33. [41]

    Many miles to go

    Glyn Elwyn, Isabelle Scholl, Caroline Tietbohl, Mala Mann, Adrian GK Ed- wards, Catharine Clay, France Légaré, Trudy van der Weijden, Carmen L Lewis, Richard M Wexler, et al. 2013. “Many miles to go. . . ”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support ...

    2013

  34. [42]

    Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Rosalind W Picard, and Stephen H Friend. 2024. Key issues as wearable digital health technologies enter clinical care. New England Journal of Medicine 390, 12 (2024), 1118–1127

    2024

  35. [43]

    right to explanation

    Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2017. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. AI magazine 38, 3 (2017), 50–57

    2017

  36. [44]

    Alice Gornall, Michael Takagi, Thilanka Morawakage, Xiaomin Liu, and Vicki Anderson. 2021. Mental health after paediatric concussion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of sports medicine 55, 18 (2021), 1048–1058

    2021

  37. [45]

    Godwin Denk Giebel, Carina Abels, Felix Plescher, Christian Speckemeier, Nils Frederik Schrader, Kirstin Börchers, Jürgen Wasem, Silke Neusser, and Nikola Blase. 2024. Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of mHealth Apps From the Perspective of Patients: Focus Group and In...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Kristen N Griggs, Olya Ossipova, Christopher P Kohlios, Alessandro N Baccarini, Emily A Howson, and Thaier Hayajneh. 2018. Healthcare blockchain system using smart contracts for secure automated remote patient monitoring. Journal of medical systems 42 (2018), 1–7

    2018

  39. [47]

    Juha Häikiö, Sari Yli-Kauhaluoma, Minna Pikkarainen, Marika Iivari, and Timo Koivumäki. 2020. Expectations to data: Perspectives of service providers and users of future health and wellness services. Health and Technology 10 (2020), 621–636

    2020

  40. [48]

    Yuexing Hao, Zeyu Liu, Robert N Riter, and Saleh Kalantari. 2024. Advancing Patient-Centered Shared Decision-Making with AI Systems for Older Adult Cancer Patients. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2024

  41. [49]

    Ben Green and Yiling Chen. 2019. The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the- loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–24. Design Opportunities of AI Remote Monitoring for Mental Health Sequelae in Youth Concussion Patients...

    2019

  42. [50]

    postconcussion-like

    Grant L Iverson and Rael T Lange. 2003. Examination of" postconcussion-like" symptoms in a healthy sample. Applied Neuropsychology 10, 3 (2003), 137–144

    2003

  43. [51]

    Pradier, Barbara Lam, Andrew C Ahn, Thomas H McCoy, Roy H Perlis, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Krzysztof Z Gajos

    Maia Jacobs, Jeffrey He, Melanie F. Pradier, Barbara Lam, Andrew C Ahn, Thomas H McCoy, Roy H Perlis, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2021. Designing AI for trust and collaboration in time-constrained medical decisions: a sociotechnical lens. In Proceedings of the 2...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Zhuochen Jin, Shuyuan Cui, Shunan Guo, David Gotz, Jimeng Sun, and Nan Cao. 2020. Carepre: An intelligent clinical decision assistance system. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare 1, 1 (2020), 1–20

    2020

  45. [53]

    Cheree Iadevaia, Trevor Roiger, and Mary Beth Zwart. 2015. Qualitative ex- amination of adolescent health-related quality of life at 1 year postconcussion. Journal of Athletic Training 50, 11 (2015), 1182–1189

    2015

  46. [54]

    Andrée-Anne Ledoux, Richard J Webster, Anna E Clarke, Deshayne B Fell, Braden D Knight, William Gardner, Paula Cloutier, Clare Gray, Meltem Tuna, and Roger Zemek. 2022. Risk of mental health problems in children and youths following concussion. JAMA network open 5, 3 (2022), e...

    2022

  47. [55]

    Min Hun Lee, Daniel P Siewiorek, Asim Smailagic, Alexandre Bernardino, and Sergi Bermúdez i Badia. 2020. Co-design and evaluation of an intelligent decision support system for stroke rehabilitation assessment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–27

    2020

  48. [56]

    Min Hun Lee, Daniel P Siewiorek, Asim Smailagic, Alexandre Bernardino, and Sergi Bermúdez Bermúdez i Badia. 2021. A human-ai collaborative approach for clinical decision making on rehabilitation assessment. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computin...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Saif Khairat, David Marc, William Crosby, Ali Al Sanousi, et al. 2018. Reasons for physicians not adopting clinical decision support systems: critical analysis. JMIR medical informatics 6, 2 (2018), e8912

    2018

  50. [58]

    Q Vera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    2020

  51. [59]

    Zilin Ma, Yiyang Mei, and Zhaoyuan Su. 2024. Understanding the benefits and challenges of using large language model-based conversational agents for mental well-being support. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings , Vol. 2023. 1105

    2024

  52. [60]

    Amama Mahmood, Junxiang Wang, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, and Chien- Ming Huang. 2023. LLM-Powered Conversational Voice Assistants: Interaction Patterns, Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13879 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Brooke Levis, Andrea Benedetti, and Brett D Thombs. 2019. Accuracy of Pa- tient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis. bmj 365 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Tamir Mendel, Oded Nov, and Batia Wiesenfeld. 2024. Advice from a Doctor or AI? Understanding Willingness to Disclose Information Through Remote Patient Monitoring to Receive Health Advice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–34

    2024

  55. [63]

    Gabrielle F Miller, Lara DePadilla, Sherry Everett Jones, Brad N Bartholow, Kelly Sarmiento, and Matthew J Breiding. 2021. The association between sports-or physical activity–related concussions and suicidality among US high school students, 2017. Sports Health 13, 2 (2021), 187–197

    2021

  56. [64]

    Katherine E Miller, James P MacDonald, Lindsay Sullivan, Lakshmi Prakruthi Rao Venkata, Junxin Shi, Keith Owen Yeates, Su Chen, Enas Alshaikh, H Gerry Taylor, Amanda Hautmann, et al. 2022. Salivary miRNA expression in children with persistent post-concussive symptoms. Frontier...

    2022

  57. [65]

    Tamara C Valovich McLeod, Joy H Lewis, Kate Whelihan, and Cailee E Welch Ba- con. 2017. Rest and return to activity after sport-related concussion: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of athletic training 52, 3 (2017), 262–287

    2017

  58. [66]

    Michael J Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design. Commun. ACM 36, 6 (1993), 24–28

    1993

  59. [67]

    Nikhila Nyapathy and Rosa I Arriaga. 2019. Tracking and reporting asthma data for children. In Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . 330–334

    2019

  60. [68]

    US Department of Health, Human Services, et al. 2008. The National Alliance for Health Information Technology report to the Office of the National Coordi- nator for Health Information Technology on defining key health information technology terms

    2008

  61. [69]

    Sarah A Mossman, Marissa J Luft, Heidi K Schroeder, Sara T Varney, David E Fleck, Drew H Barzman, Richard Gilman, Melissa P DelBello, and Jeffrey R Strawn. 2017. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale in ado- lescents with generalized anxiety disorder: signal de...

    2017

  62. [70]

    Rudransh Pathak. 2024. Comparative Analysis of Prominent AI Models for Enhanced Diabetes Diagnosis & Prediction. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics. 1–1

    2024

  63. [71]

    Elise Purdy. 2023. Exploring Screen and Social Media Use Among Young Adults With Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms . Master’s thesis. The University of Western Ontario (Canada)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Scott Ramsay, V Susan Dahinten, Manon Ranger, and Shelina Babul. 2023. Follow-up visits after a concussion in the pediatric population: An integra- tive review. NeuroRehabilitation 52, 3 (2023), 315–328

    2023

  65. [73]

    Melissa M Olen and Brynn Dechert-Crooks. 2017. Implantable cardiac devices: The utility of remote monitoring in a paediatric and CHD population.Cardiology in the Young 27, S1 (2017), S143–S146

    2017

  66. [74]

    Frederick P Rivara and Robert Graham. 2014. Sports-related concussions in youth: report from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Jama 311, 3 (2014), 239–240

    2014

  67. [75]

    Santiago Romero-Brufau, Kirk D Wyatt, Patricia Boyum, Mindy Mickelson, Matthew Moore, and Cheristi Cognetta-Rieke. 2020. A lesson in implementa- tion: a pre-post study of providers’ experience with artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support. International journal ...

    2020

  68. [76]

    Sean C Rose, Kevin D Weber, James B Collen, and Geoffrey L Heyer. 2015. The diagnosis and management of concussion in children and adolescents. Pediatric neurology 53, 2 (2015), 108–118

    2015

  69. [77]

    Nitin Rane, Saurabh Choudhary, and Jayesh Rane. 2023. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in healthcare: Interpretable Models for Clinical Decision Support. A vailable at SSRN 4637897 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Yasmin Salamah, Rahma Dany Asyifa, and Auzi Asfarian. 2021. Improving the usability of personal health record in mobile health application for people with autoimmune disease. In Proceedings of the Asian CHI Symposium 2021 . 180–188

    2021

  71. [79]

    Ayanna Seals, Giuseppina Pilloni, Jin Kim, Raul Sanchez, John-Ross Rizzo, Leigh Charvet, Oded Nov, and Graham Dove. 2022. ‘Are they doing better in the clinic or at home?’: understanding clinicians’ needs when visualizing wearable sensor data used in remote gait assessments fo...

    2022

  72. [80]

    Philip Sedgwick. 2013. Convenience sampling. Bmj 347 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    Kelly Russell, Randy Walld, James M Bolton, Daniel Chateau, and Michael J Ellis

  74. [82]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2022. Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press

    2022

  75. [83]

    Noah D Silverberg, Mary Alexis Iaccarino, William J Panenka, Grant L Iverson, Karen L McCulloch, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, Nick Reed, Michael McCrea, Al- ison M Cogan, Min Jeong Park Graf, et al . 2020. Management of concussion and mild traumatic brain injury: a synthesis of prac...

    2020

  76. [84]

    Noah D Silverberg and Ana Mikolić. 2023. Management of psychological com- plications following mild traumatic brain injury. Current Neurology and Neuro- science Reports 23, 3 (2023), 49–58

    2023

  77. [85]

    James Simpson, Franziska Gaiser, Miroslav Macík, and Timna Breßgott. 2020. Daisy: a friendly conversational agent for older adults. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on conversational user interfaces . 1–3

    2020

  78. [86]

    The human body is a black box

    Mark Sendak, Madeleine Clare Elish, Michael Gao, Joseph Futoma, William Ratliff, Marshall Nichols, Armando Bedoya, Suresh Balu, and Cara O’Brien. 2020. " The human body is a black box" supporting clinical decision-making with deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 conferenc...

    2020

  79. [87]

    Oren Tirosh, Jaymee Klonis, Megan Hamilton, John Olver, Nilmini Wickramas- inghe, Dean Mckenzie, Doa El-Ansary, and Gavin Williams. 2024. Smartphone Technology to Facilitate Remote Postural Balance Assessment in Acute Concus- sion Management: Pilot Study. Sensors 24, 21 (2024), 6870

    2024

  80. [88]

    Brett G Toresdahl, Warren K Young, Brianna Quijano, and Daphne A Scott. 2021. A systematic review of telehealth and sport-related concussion: baseline testing, diagnosis, and management. HSS Journal® 17, 1 (2021), 18–24. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY ...

    2021

  81. [89]

    Jessica Van Brummelen, Maura Kelleher, Mingyan Claire Tian, and Nghi Nguyen

  82. [90]

    Omer Van den Bergh and Marta Walentynowicz. 2016. Accuracy and bias in retrospective symptom reporting. Current opinion in psychiatry 29, 5 (2016), 302–308

    2016

  83. [91]

    Murray B Stein, Sonia Jain, Joseph T Giacino, Harvey Levin, Sureyya Dikmen, Lindsay D Nelson, Mary J Vassar, David O Okonkwo, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Claudia S Robertson, et al. 2019. Risk of posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression in civilian patients after mild traum...

    2019

  84. [92]

    Bryan Wang, Gang Li, and Yang Li. 2023. Enabling conversational interaction with mobile ui using large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  85. [93]

    Brilliant AI doctor

    Dakuo Wang, Liuping Wang, Zhan Zhang, Ding Wang, Haiyi Zhu, Yvonne Gao, Xiangmin Fan, and Feng Tian. 2021. “Brilliant AI doctor” in rural clinics: Challenges in AI-powered clinical decision support system deployment. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors i...

    2021

  86. [94]

    Liuping Wang, Zhan Zhang, Dakuo Wang, Weidan Cao, Xiaomu Zhou, Ping Zhang, Jianxing Liu, Xiangmin Fan, and Feng Tian. 2023. Human-centered design and evaluation of AI-empowered clinical decision support systems: a systematic review. Frontiers in Computer Science 5 (2023), 1187299

    2023

  87. [95]

    InProceed- ings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

    What Do Children and Parents Want and Perceive in Conversational Agents? Towards Transparent, Trustworthy, Democratized Agents. InProceed- ings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference . 187– 197

  88. [96]

    Siyi Wu, Weidan Cao, Shihan Fu, Bingsheng Yao, Ziqi Yang, Changchang Yin, Varun Mishra, Daniel Addison, Ping Zhang, and Dakuo Wang. 2024. Car- dioAI: A Multimodal AI-based System to Support Symptom Monitoring and Risk Detection of Cancer Treatment-Induced Cardiotoxicity. arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Jacqueline van Ierssel, Jennifer O’Neil, Judy King, Roger Zemek, and Heidi Sveistrup. 2023. Clinician Perspectives on Providing Concussion Assessment and Management via Telehealth: A Mixed-Methods Study. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 38, 3 (2023), E233–E243

    2023

  90. [98]

    Jingzhen Yang, Corinne Peek-Asa, Tracey Covassin, and James C Torner. 2015. Post-concussion symptoms of depression and anxiety in division I collegiate athletes. Developmental neuropsychology 40, 1 (2015), 18–23

    2015

  91. [99]

    Jingzhen Yang, Menglin Xu, Lindsay Sullivan, H Gerry Taylor, and Keith Owen Yeates. 2020. Bidirectional association between daily physical activity and postconcussion symptoms among youth. JAMA Network Open 3, 11 (2020), e2027486–e2027486

    2020

  92. [100]

    Jingzhen Yang, Keith Owen Yeates, Junxin Shi, Lindsay Sullivan, Pengcheng Xun, H Gerry Taylor, Michael Tiso, Thomas Pommering, James MacDonald, Daniel M Cohen, et al. 2021. Association of self-paced physical and cognitive activities across the first week postconcussion with sy...

    2021

  93. [101]

    Peter West, Max Van Kleek, Richard Giordano, Mark J Weal, and Nigel Shadbolt

  94. [102]

    Qian Yang, John Zimmerman, Aaron Steinfeld, Lisa Carey, and James F Antaki

  95. [103]

    Rui Yang, Edison Marrese-Taylor, Yuhe Ke, Lechao Cheng, Qingyu Chen, and Irene Li. 2023. Integrating umls knowledge into large language models for medical question answering. arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv–2310

    2023

  96. [104]

    Susan Wyche, Dr Jennifer Olson, Mary Karanu, Eric Omondi, and Mike Endovo Olonyo. 2024. Limitations of Using Mobile Phones for Managing Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Among Youth in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Implications for mHealth. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer inte...

    2024

  97. [105]

    Changchang Yin, Pin-Yu Chen, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, Jeffrey Caterino, and Ping Zhang. 2024. Sepsislab: Early sepsis prediction with uncertainty quantification and active sensing. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 6158–6168

    2024

  98. [106]

    Dong Whi Yoo, Hayoung Woo, Sachin R Pendse, Nathaniel Young Lu, Michael L Birnbaum, Gregory D Abowd, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2024. Missed oppor- tunities for human-centered AI research: Understanding stakeholder collabora- tion in mental health AI research. Proceedings of the...

    2024

  99. [107]

    MV Zamfir. 2015. The Physical and Mental Benefits of Socialization. Marathon- Revista s,tiint,elor motricităt,ii umane 12, 1 (2015)

    2015

  100. [108]

    Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, and John Zimmerman. 2019. Unremarkable AI: Fit- ting intelligent decision support into critical, clinical decision-making processes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–11

    2019

  101. [109]

    Yunfeng Zhang, Q Vera Liao, and Rachel KE Bellamy. 2020. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 295–305. A APPENDIX: INTERVIEW ...

    2020

  102. [112]

    Ziqi Yang, Xuhai Xu, Bingsheng Yao, Ethan Rogers, Shao Zhang, Stephen Intille, Nawar Shara, Guodong Gordon Gao, and Dakuo Wang. 2024. Talk2Care: An LLM-based Voice Assistant for Communication between Healthcare Providers and Older Adults. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive,...

    2024

  103. [116]

    Shao Zhang, Jianing Yu, Xuhai Xu, Changchang Yin, Yuxuan Lu, Bingsheng Yao, Melanie Tory, Lace M Padilla, Jeffrey Caterino, Ping Zhang, et al . 2024. Rethinking human-ai collaboration in complex medical decision making: A case study in sepsis diagnosis. In Proceedings of the C...

    2024

  104. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Investigating the heart pump implant decision process: opportunities for decision support tools to help. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4477–4488

    2016

  105. [2018]

    In proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Common barriers to the use of patient-generated data across clinical set- tings. In proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2018

  106. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems

    Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during medical decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2019

  107. [2021]

    JMIR Formative Research 5, 7 (2021), e27992

    Clinical utility and functionality of an artificial intelligence–based app to predict mortality in COVID-19: mixed methods analysis. JMIR Formative Research 5, 7 (2021), e27992

    2021

  108. [2022]

    Frontiers in neurology 12 (2022), 769819

    Evaluation of machine learning techniques to predict the likelihood of mental health conditions following a first mTBI. Frontiers in neurology 12 (2022), 769819

    2022

  109. [2023]

    The Journal of Pediatrics 259 (2023), 113436

    Incidence of Subsequent Mental Health Disorders and Social Adversity Following Pediatric Concussion: A Longitudinal, Population-Based Study. The Journal of Pediatrics 259 (2023), 113436

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.