| Literature DB >> 35737439 |
Ayan Chatterjee1, Andreas Prinz1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic e-coaching may motivate individuals to lead a healthy lifestyle with early health risk prediction, personalized recommendation generation, and goal evaluation. Multiple studies have reported on uninterrupted and automatic monitoring of behavioral aspects (such as sedentary time, amount, and type of physical activity); however, e-coaching and personalized feedback techniques are still in a nascent stage. Current intelligent coaching strategies are mostly based on the handcrafted string messages that rarely individualize to each user's needs, context, and preferences. Therefore, more realistic, flexible, practical, sophisticated, and engaging strategies are needed to model personalized recommendations.Entities:
Keywords: descriptive logic; e-coach; ontology; reasoning; recommendation generation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35737439 PMCID: PMC9282669 DOI: 10.2196/33847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Med Inform
A qualitative comparison between our proposed study and the existing studies.
| Study | Used technologies | Annotation of sensor data | Annotation of personal and health data or health management data | Rule-based recommendation generation | Annotation of preference data | Annotation of recommendation messages |
| Our study | OWLa, HermiT, RDFb, SPARQLc, TDBd, OWLViz, OntoGraf, and Java | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Chatterjee et al [ | OWL, HermiT, RDF, SPARQL, TDB, OWLViz, SSNe, SNOMED-CTf, OntoGraf, and Java | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Kim et al [ | OWL | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Sojic et al [ | OWL and SWRLg | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Kim et al [ | OWL and FaCT++ | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Lasierra et al [ | OWL, RDF, and SPARQL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Yao and Kumar [ | OWL and SWRL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Chi et al [ | OWL and SWRL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Rhayem et al [ | OWL and SWRL | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| Galopin et al [ | OWL and SWRL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Sherimon and Krishnan [ | OWL and SWRL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Hristoskova et al [ | SOAh, Amigo, OWL, and SWRL | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Riano et al [ | OWL | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Jin and Kim [ | SSN and IETF YANG | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Ganguly et al [ | OWL | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Bouza et al [ | OWL, Decision Tree, and Java | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Villalonga et al [ | OWL and SPARQL | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
aOWL: Web Ontology Language.
bRDF: Resource Description Framework.
cSPARQL: SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language.
dTDB: tuple database.
eSSN: semantic sensor network.
fSNOMED-CT: Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine–Clinical Terms.
gSWRL: Semantic Web Rule Language.
hSOA: service-oriented architecture.
Figure 1High-level representation of the proposed approach. SPARQL: SPARQL Protocol and Resource Description Framework Query Language; TDB: tuple database; UiAeHo: University of Agder eHealth Ontology.
Figure 2The modules of the e-coach prototype system. OWL: Web Ontology Language; SPARQL: SPARQL Protocol and Resource Description Framework Query Language; TDB: tuple database.
Figure 3High-level graphical representation of participant using OntoGraf in Protégé. OWL: Web Ontology Language.
Figure 4High-level graphical representation of observable data using OntoGraf in Protégé.
Figure 5High-level graphical representation of recommendation using OntoGraf in Protégé.
Figure 6High-level graphical representation of preferences using OntoGraf in Protégé.
Figure 7Unified Modeling Language sequence diagram for personalized recommendation generation and delivery. SPARQL: SPARQL Protocol and Resource Description Framework Query Language; TDB: tuple database.
Recommendation generation for different cases on day n for day n+1 (n>0).
| Case | Activity status on day | Recommendations for day | |
|
|
| ToDo | Informal |
| 1 | Goal achieved | Aa-3, A-6, A-8, A-10, and A-12 | A-13 and Cb-1 |
| 2 | Goal partially achieved | A-2, A-5, A-8, A-10, and A-11 | A-14 and C-1 |
| 3 | Goal partially achieved | A-1, A-5, A-7, A-9, and A-12 | A-14 and C-1 |
| 4 | Goal not achieved | A-1, A-5, A-7, A-9, and A-11 | A-14 and C-1 |
| 5 | Goal achieved | A-4, A-6, A-8, A-10, and A-12 | A-13 and C-1 |
| 6 | Goal partially achieved | A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9, and A-11 | A-14 and C-1 |
| 7 | Goal partially achieved | A-3, A-5, A-7, A-9, and A-12 | A-14 and C-1 |
| 8 | Goal not achieved | A-3, A-5, A-7, A-9, and A-11 | A-14 and C-1 |
aA: activity recommendations.
bC: contextual recommendations.
Comparative performance analysis of different reasoners available in Protégé.
| Reasoner | Approximate reasoning time (seconds) |
| HermiT | 2-3 |
| Pellet | 4-5 |
| FaCT++ | 5-6 |
| RacerPro | 4-5 |
| KAON2 | 5-6 |