Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

AI Solutionism and Digital Self-Tracking with Wearables

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Automating self-tracking from data capture to insight generation turns users into bystanders of their own lived experience, this position paper argues.

desk verdict A coherent, well-cited position paper that applies the 'AI solutionism' critique to LLM wearables; its empirical anchor is real but depends on Oura metrics being comprehensive, which the paper itself concedes may not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15162 v1 pith:7D2GEKG6 submitted 2025-05-21 cs.HC

Hannah R. Nolasco , Andrew Vargo , Koichi Kise This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords ArtificialintelligenceAIsolutionismDigitalhealthSelf-trackingWearablesSleepAutomationUseragency
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 the push to automate self-tracking through AI-powered wearables and, increasingly, large language models, undermines the practice's purpose of fostering reflection and agency. The authors contend that when a device handles both data collection and insight generation, users stop interpreting their own data, lose confidence in their ability to act, and can come to believe the device is helping even when their objective health data show no improvement. They ground this claim in their own long-term study of Oura Ring users, who reported positive effects on sleep while their sleep metrics stayed flat, and in interviews showing dissatisfaction, a sense of learned helplessness, and a feeling that the device told them nothing new. The stakes are practical: if full automation erodes reflection, then the current design direction of wearables and LLM-based health assistants may be counterproductive, and designers should pursue slower, more user-involved tracking.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fully automated self-tracking loop exemplified by the Oura Ring: sensors passively collect physiological data, algorithms generate insights, and the user receives conclusions without participating in interpretation. The paper's phrase 'automated self-tracking offloads everything' is the load-bearing mechanism: removing the user from data collection and insight generation is what, in the argument, erodes reflection and agency and permits a misplaced belief in device impact.

What would settle it

Conduct a year-long study in which Oura Ring wearers are tracked with both the ring's sleep metrics and an independent research-grade sleep measurement such as polysomnography, while also collecting self-reported improvement and reflection depth. If self-reported improvers show real improvements on the independent measure, the paper's 'misplaced belief' interpretation collapses; if they show none, the claim that automation produces belief without measurable improvement is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI-driven automation in self-tracking, far from being a neutral convenience, produces a specific harm: it turns users into bystanders of their own data, estranges them from their lived experience, and can generate a misplaced belief in the device's effectiveness even when objective health metrics show no improvement. In the authors' Oura Ring investigation, after a year of consistent use users showed stagnant sleep trends while reporting positive impact; interviews revealed dissatisfaction, data that did not tell them anything new, contradictions with their own subjective evaluations, and learned helplessness. The authors conclude that automated self-trackers produce shallower reflection than manual or mixed methods and argue for slower technology and a balance between manual and automated tracking.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the assumption that the Oura Ring's objective sleep metrics accurately capture whether users' sleep actually improved; the paper itself acknowledges that users might have become more mindful of sleep hygiene in ways the device did not detect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-term wearable users can hold a positive belief in device impact that their own objective data do not support.
  • Automated self-tracking produces shallower reflection than manual or mixed-method self-tracking.
  • Users can develop learned helplessness and become dependent on device instruction rather than building self-efficacy.
  • Designers of self-tracking should separate 'fast' from 'efficient' and pursue slower technology that encourages self-reflection without pressuring users to appease a device.
  • If automation is used, a balance between manual and automated self-tracking best leverages the strengths of both methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'offload everything' critique applies with added force to LLM-based health assistants, which generate natural-language insights and recommendations without requiring user interpretation; the paper gestures at this but does not test it.
  • A testable extension would randomly assign users to fully automated, semi-automated, and manual tracking and measure reflection depth, agency, and objective health outcomes; the paper's account predicts a monotonic decline in reflection as automation rises.
  • If correct, the 'misplaced belief' phenomenon could be a general feature of delegated evaluation: people may transfer trust to an automated system's verdict even when the underlying metric is unchanged.
  • The argument implies that design guidance for wellness wearables might require insight generation to be paired with user-facing reflection prompts, though the paper itself stops short of proposing such a mandate.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that the increasing automation of self-tracking—from passive sensing to AI-generated insights—undermines users' agency and capacity for independent reflection. Drawing on the authors' prior Oura Ring studies (refs. [26] and [27]), it reports that long-term users showed no objective sleep improvements yet perceived positive effects, and that qualitative interviews revealed dissatisfaction, a sense of disconnect from data, and learned helplessness. The paper critiques "AI solutionism" in wearables, advocates for slower, user-centered or semi-automated tracking, and raises concerns about the growing integration of large language models into self-tracking devices. It is a conceptual and agenda-setting contribution rather than a new empirical study.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important gap in the HCI literature: evaluations of AI-enhanced wearables typically focus on accuracy, engagement, and behavior change, but rarely on whether automation erodes the user's reflective role. The authors connect their empirical observations to a broader critique of solutionism and offer constructive design alternatives (slow technology, user-defined tracking, balance between manual and automated methods). The paper's strengths are its clear thesis, appropriately hedged language in several passages, and a useful synthesis of relevant literature. Its main weakness is that the empirical support is not self-contained and the key inference is vulnerable to an acknowledged alternative interpretation. As a workshop position paper, it is a valuable provocation, but its evidentiary claims need more qualification or support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3] The paper's most concrete evidence for "misplaced belief" is the discrepancy between users' positive self-reports and "stagnant trend lines in objective data" from the Oura Ring. This is reported only via self-citations [26], [27], without sample sizes, measures, or analysis details, and the authors themselves acknowledge in §2.1 that "it is also possible that they did become more mindful of their sleep hygiene, but their efforts were not detected by the device." However, §3 concludes "This may have led to a misplaced belief in the device's impact despite a lack of positive change in their captured sleep quality" without carrying that alternative explanation forward. Because the cited validations of Oura ([2], [25]) address sleep staging and sleep quality prediction, not sensitivity to detect all health-relevant longitudinal improvements, the observation does not uniquely support the conclusion that automation causes the misplaced belief. The authors should either present the data with a discussion of the validity assumption, or explicitly recast the example as a hypothesis rather than evidence.
  2. [Section 2.2] The qualitative findings—dissatisfaction with information gain, contradicted personal evaluations, and learned helplessness—are summarized without methodological detail, and the interpretation that automation is the cause is underdetermined. The paper cites its own prior work [27], but a position paper's argument would be strengthened by including at least a few representative quotes, participant counts, or a brief description of the interview protocol; alternatively, the authors should explicitly label these findings as illustrative. As written, the reader cannot assess whether the "learned helplessness" sentiments are due to the device's automation or to the external factors (school, work, social life) that the participants themselves cited.
  3. [Section 3.1] The claim that automated self-tracking "offloads everything" and makes users "bystanders and altogether strangers to our own lived experiences" is unqualified, despite the more hedged language used elsewhere in the paper. Since the paper only studies one wearable and acknowledges in §2.1 that users may have improved in ways the device did not detect, a scoping sentence is needed to avoid overgeneralization. This overstatement risks weakening the argument's credibility, especially in a position paper that aims to persuade.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase "behind the backcloth" is unusual; "behind the curtain" or "in the background" would be clearer.
  2. [Throughout] The paper refers to "the Oura ring" and "the Oura Ring" inconsistently; please standardize the capitalization.
  3. [Section 1] The abstract promises a discussion of "potential remedies," but the Introduction does not provide a roadmap; a brief outline of the paper's structure at the end of the Introduction would improve readability.
  4. [Section 2.1] Reference [10] is cited for sensor fidelity, but the paper does not discuss known limitations of consumer wearables in longitudinal tracking; a sentence acknowledging this, alongside the validity discussion, would strengthen the argument.
  5. [Section 1] The claim that "There is no evidence to support the notion that automation in self-tracking of health parameters encourages behavior change [29]" is stronger than the cited source supports; consider "little evidence" or a qualification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a position argument that cites prior peer-reviewed empirical work as evidence, without reducing any claimed result to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is a position paper with no quantitative derivation, fitted parameters, or formal predictions. Its main empirical anchor is the authors' prior INTERACT 2023 study [26] reporting stagnant Oura objective data despite positive self-reports; that study is a separately peer-reviewed empirical result and is cited as evidence, not as an assumption containing the present conclusions. The paper explicitly hedges the interpretation: 'It is also possible that they did become more mindful of their sleep hygiene, but their efforts were not detected by the device,' which directly undercuts any suggestion that the critique is forced by construction. The broader argument about automation, reflection, and agency is supported by multiple independent external citations on self-tracking, self-reflection, attrition, and behavioral change techniques. Self-citation occurs, but it functions as a link to previously published, externally falsifiable data rather than as a circular lynchpin. No step in the paper reduces an output to an input by definition or equates a fitted parameter with a prediction.

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

This is an argumentative essay, so there are no free parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on four normative and methodological assumptions: that health behavior change is the intended outcome of self-tracking, that user agency and reflection are valuable, that the Oura Ring's objective metrics validly measure sleep improvement, and that the authors' earlier studies are sound. These are stated or implicitly assumed in Sections 1 and 2.1.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The goal of self-tracking is to improve health behavior and wellbeing
    The paper treats a lack of behavior change as a device failure (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption User agency and independent reflection are intrinsically valuable
    The critique of automation as 'stymieing' agency presumes these are goods; this is a normative premise, not empirically established (Section 1, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The Oura Ring's objective sleep metrics are a valid ground truth for detecting sleep improvement
    The perception-vs-reality finding rests on treating the device data as authoritative; the paper hedges in Section 2.1 ('It is also possible that they did become more mindful...').
  • domain assumption The prior self-cited studies [26] and [27] are methodologically sound
    The empirical observations are not re-presented here; the argument inherits their validity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Solutionism and Digital Self-Tracking with Wearables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7D2GEKG6

@misc{pith2026250515162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Solutionism and Digital Self-Tracking with Wearables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7D2GEKG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15162}
}
read the original abstract

Self-tracking technologies and wearables automate the process of data collection and insight generation with the support of artificial intelligence systems, with many emerging studies exploring ways to evolve these features further through large-language models (LLMs). This is done with the intent to reduce capture burden and the cognitive stress of health-based decision making, but studies neglect to consider how automation has stymied the agency and independent reflection of users of self-tracking interventions. In this position paper, we explore the consequences of automation in self-tracking by relating it to our experiences with investigating the Oura Ring, a sleep wearable, and navigate potential remedies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, Yusuke Komatsu, Motoi Iwata, and Koichi Kise

    Hannah R. Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, Yusuke Komatsu, Motoi Iwata, and Koichi Kise. 2023. Perception Versus Reality: How User Self-reflections Compare to Ac- tual Data. InHuman-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023, José Abdelnour No- cera, Marta Kristín Lárusdóttir, Helen Petrie, Antonio Piccinno, and Marco Winck- ler (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham,...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2023

  2. [27]

    Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, Marc Moreeuw, Toma Hara, and Koichi Kise

    Hannah R. Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, Marc Moreeuw, Toma Hara, and Koichi Kise. 2024. Augmenting Sleep Behavior with a Wearable: Can Self-Reflection Help?. InProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2024 (AHs ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 278–281. doi:10.1145/3652920.3653049

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Marco Altini and Hannu Kinnunen. 2021. The Promise of Sleep: A Multi-Sensor Approach for Accurate Sleep Stage Detection Using the Oura Ring.Sensors21, 13 (Jan. 2021), 4302. doi:10.3390/s21134302 Number: 13 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    doi:10.3390/s21134302 2021

  4. [25]

    Elena Malakhatka, Anas Al Rahis, Osman Osman, and Per Lundqvist. 2024. Monitoring and Predicting Occupant’s Sleep Quality by Using Wearable Device OURA Ring and Smart Building Sensors Data (Living Laboratory Case Study). MDPI(Oct. 2024). doi:10.3390/buildings11100459

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings11100459 2024

  5. [1]

    Arfan Ahmed, Sarah Aziz, Alaa Abd-alrazaq, Rawan AlSaad, and Javaid Sheikh

    work page

  6. [3]

    Christiane Attig and Thomas Franke. 2020. Abandonment of personal quantifi- cation: A review and empirical study investigating reasons for wearable activ- ity tracking attrition.Computers in Human Behavior102 (Jan. 2020), 223–237. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.025

    doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.025 2020

  7. [4]

    Berendsen, Ivy Cheung Mason, Emily G

    Kelly Glazer Baron, Jennifer Duffecy, Mark A. Berendsen, Ivy Cheung Mason, Emily G. Lattie, and Natalie C. Manalo. 2018. Feeling validated yet? A scoping review of the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile technology to measure and improve sleep.Sleep Medicine Reviews40 (Aug. 2018), 151–159. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2017.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2017.12.002 2018

  8. [5]

    Janghee Cho, Laura Devendorf, and Stephen Voida. 2021. From The Art of Reflection to The Art of Noticing: A Shifting View of Self-Tracking Technologies’ Role in Supporting Sustainable Food Practices. InExtended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3411763.3451838

    arXiv 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [6]

    Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Saeed Abdullah, Mashfiqui Rabbi, Edison Thomaz, Daniel A. Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D. Abowd, Tanzeem Choudhury, James Fogarty, Bongshin Lee, Mark Matthews, and Julie A. Kientz. 2017. Semi- Automated Tracking: A Balanced Approach for Self...

    2017 doi

  2. [7]

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, Matthew Kay, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A. Kientz

  3. [8]

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, Haining Zhu, Nathalie Henry Riche, and Dominikus Baur. 2017. Understanding self-reflection: how people reflect on personal data through visual data exploration. InProceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technol...

    2017

  4. [9]

    Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B. Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A. Kientz

  5. [10]

    Colrain, and Fiona C

    Massimiliano De Zambotti, Nicola Cellini, Aimée Goldstone, Ian M. Colrain, and Fiona C. Baker. 2019. Wearable Sleep Technology in Clinical and Research Settings.Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise51, 7 (July 2019), 1538–1557. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001947

    2019 doi

  6. [11]

    Shan Feng, Matti Mäntymäki, Amandeep Dhir, and Hannu Salmela. 2021. How Self-tracking and the Quantified Self Promote Health and Well-being: Systematic Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research23, 9 (Sept. 2021), e25171. doi:10. 2196/25171

    2021

  7. [12]

    Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Large Language Models for Wearable Sensor-Based Human Activity Recognition, Health Monitoring, and Behavioral Modeling: A Survey of Early Trends, Datasets, and Challenges.Sensors24, 15 (Jan. 2024), 5045. doi:10. 3390/s24155045 Number: 15 Publisher: Multid...

    2024

  8. [13]

    James N. Gilmore. 2021. Predicting Covid-19: wearable technology and the politics of solutionism.Cultural Studies35, 2-3 (May 2021), 382–

    2021

  9. [14]

    L Grammel, M Tory, and M Storey. 2010. How Information Visualization Novices Construct Visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics16, 6 (Nov. 2010), 943–952. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2010.164

    2010 doi

  10. [15]

    Christopher Gutierrez. 2016. The other self in free fall: Anxiety and automated tracking applications.CM: Communication and Media11, 38 (2016), 111–134. doi:10.5937/comman12-11285

    2016 doi

  11. [16]

    Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing5, 3 (Aug. 2001), 201–212. doi:10. 1007/PL00000019

    2001

  12. [17]

    Daniel Harrison, Paul Marshall, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, and Jon Bird. 2015. Activity tracking: barriers, workarounds and customisation. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, Osaka Japan, 617–621. doi:10.1145/2...

    2015

  13. [18]

    Sheikh Asif Imran, Mohammad Nur Hossain Khan, Subrata Biswas, and Bashima Islam. 2024. LLaSA: A Multimodal LLM for Human Activity Anal- ysis Through Wearable and Smartphone Sensors. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.14498 arXiv:2406.14498 [cs]

    2024 doi

  14. [19]

    Yubin Kim, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2024. Health-LLM: Large Language Models for Health Prediction via Wearable Sensor Data. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.06866 arXiv:2401.06866 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [20]

    Krukkert

    D.H.J. Krukkert. 2023.Manual vs. Automated Self-Tracking: How Does it Influence Reflection?Ph. D. Dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology. https: //research.tue.nl/en/studentTheses/manual-vs-automated-self-tracking

    2023

  16. [22]

    Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 557–566. doi:10.1145/1753326. 1753409

    2010 doi

  17. [23]

    Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi

    Ian Li, Anind K. Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Understanding my data, myself: supporting self-reflection with ubicomp technologies. InProceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, Beijing China, 405–414. doi:10.1145/2030112.2030166

    2011

  18. [24]

    Fu-ren Lin and Nila Armelia Windasari. 2019. Continued use of wearables for wellbeing with a cultural probe.The Service Industries Journal39, 15-16 (Dec. 2019), 1140–1166. doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1504924 Number: 15-16 Publisher: Routledge

    2019

  19. [28]

    Oladapo Oyebode, Mona Alhasani, Dinesh Mulchandani, Tolulope Olagunju, and Rita Orji. 2021. SleepFit: A Persuasive Mobile App for Improving Sleep Habits in Young Adults. In2021 IEEE 9th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health(SeGAH). IEEE, Dubai, ...

    2021

  20. [29]

    Patel, David A

    Mitesh S. Patel, David A. Asch, and Kevin G. Volpp. 2015. Wearable Devices as Facilitators, Not Drivers, of Health Behavior Change.JAMA313, 5 (Feb. 2015),

    2015

  21. [30]

    John Rooksby, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2014. Personal tracking as lived informatics. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 1163–1172. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557039

    2014

  22. [31]

    Minna Ruckenstein. 2014. Visualized and Interacted Life: Personal Analytics and Engagements with Data Doubles.Societies4, 1 (Feb. 2014), 68–84. doi:10.3390/ soc4010068

    2014

  23. [32]

    Rachel Sanders. 2017. Self-tracking in the Digital Era: Biopower, Patriarchy, and the New Biometric Body Projects.Body & Society23, 1 (March 2017), 36–63. doi:10.1177/1357034X16660366

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Wannamaker, Sandeep Zechariah George Kollannur, Marian Dörk, and Wesley Willett

    Kendra A. Wannamaker, Sandeep Zechariah George Kollannur, Marian Dörk, and Wesley Willett. 2021. I/O Bits: User-Driven, Situated, and Dedicated Self- Tracking. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference 2021. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 523–537. doi:10.1145/3461778.3462138

    2021

  25. [34]

    Michał Wieczorek, Fiachra O’Brolchain, Yashar Saghai, and Bert Gordijn. 2023. The ethics of self-tracking. A comprehensive review of the literature.Ethics & Behavior(May 2023). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508422. 2022.2082969 Publisher: Routledge

    2023

  26. [35]

    Xue Wu, Man Zhao, Han-Teng Liao, and Si-Pan Sun. 2020. A Scientometric Analysis of Self-tracking in Relation to Artificial Intelligence and Big Data.IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering806, 1 (April 2020), 012014. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/806/1/012014

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    I Must Try Harder

    Sharon Wulfovich, Maddalena Fiordelli, Homero Rivas, Waldo Concepcion, and Katarzyna Wac. 2019. “I Must Try Harder”: Design Implications for Mobile Apps and Wearables Contributing to Self-Efficacy of Patients With Chronic Conditions. Frontiers in Psychology10 (Oct. 2019), 2388...

    2019

  28. [37]

    Newman, and Mark S

    Rayoung Yang, Eunice Shin, Mark W. Newman, and Mark S. Ackerman. 2015. When fitness trackers don’t ’fit’: end-user difficulties in the assessment of per- sonal tracking device accuracy. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Co...

    2015

  29. [391]

    doi:10.1080/09502386.2021.1898021 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2021.1898021

    2021

  30. [459]

    doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14781

    2014

  31. [2014]

    InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14)

    Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1143–1152. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557372

  32. [2025]

    2025), 4591

    Leveraging LLMs and wearables to provide personalized recommendations for enhancing student well-being and academic performance through a proof of concept.Scientific Reports15, 1 (Feb. 2025), 4591. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-89386-2

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.