Use of Wearable Sensors in Angelman Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
Veronika Vozka, Wei Siong Neo, Jane Kinkus Yatcilla and 9 others
PMID 42118603WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable sleep and vocalization sensors have been used in small Angelman syndrome studies, mostly at home.
Some matched existing measures, but device intolerance and limited testing mean they are not ready as routine clinical tools.
Key findings
01The review identified 16 studies using wearable sensors in Angelman syndrome, with sample sizes ranging from 3 to 55 participants.
02Sleep was studied in 10 studies using actigraphy, but 6 studies reported that some participants could not tolerate wearing an actigraph.
03Wearable gait sensors measured real-world walking and showed agreement with laboratory assessments, while people with Angelman syndrome had shorter stride length, reduced gait speed and wider strides.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 16 studies were found, and each had 3 to 55 participants, so the review cannot describe typical Angelman syndrome care. The review was descriptive and did not formally assess study quality or bias. Many studies did not report data loss, and several reported poor tolerance of devices. Sensors were mostly limited to sleep, language, gait, EEG power, arousal and caregiver proximity; seizures, behaviour and other outcomes were not prioritized. The review used English-language peer-reviewed sources only, so relevant non-English or conference/engineering studies may be missing. Psychometric checks were incomplete and sample-specific, so agreement with existing tests cannot be assumed for all devices or settings. Race/ethnicity and genotype were not reported in many studies, so generalisability is limited.
Declared interests
Funding came from internal university grants, including the Purdue Institute for Integrative Neuroscience and engineering/undergraduate research programs. One author is a co-founder and co-inventor on patents held by Predictive Wear Inc. and Purdue Research Foundation; another author is a paid consultant for work unrelated to this project.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as proof that wearable sensors can replace clinical assessment or show treatment effects. It describes 16 small studies, many without quality assessment or full testing against other measures, and several sensors were poorly tolerated.