Ontology Summit 2008 CommuniquÃ©: Towards an open ontology repository

Philosophy

Each annual Ontology Summit initiative makes a statement appropriate to each SummitÂs theme as part of our general advocacy designed to bring ontology science and engineering into the mainstream. The theme this year is "Towards an Open Ontology Repository". This communiquÃ© represents the joint position of those who were engaged in the year's summit discourse on an Open Ontology Repository (OOR) and of those who endorse below. In this discussion, we have agreed that an "ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed."

          We believe in the promise of semantic technologies based on logic, databases and the Semantic Web, a Web of exposed data and of interpretations of that data (i.e., of semantics), using common standards. Such technologies enable distinguishable, computable, reusable, and sharable meaning of Web and other artifacts, including data, documents, and services. We also believe that making that vision a reality requires additional supporting resources and these resources should be open, extensible, and provide common services over the ontologies.

/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 1/12 OntologySummit2008 Communique WikiHomePage | RecentChanges | Page Index Login (create account) OntologySummit2008 Communiqué: Towards an Open Ontology Repository (1B3Y) Version: 1.0.0 was adopted and released on 29-April-2008 2:49pm EDT / Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. (1GMG) Current Version: 1.0.3 (1H16) this version has been edited (incorporating non-substantive changes) mainly by BarrySmith / 2008.05.04 (1HM2) Lead Editors: LeoObrst & MarkMusen (1GOY) Co-Editors: BarrySmith, FabianNeuhaus, FrankOlken, MichaelGruninger, MichelleRaymond, PatHayes & RaviSharma (1GOZ) 1. Introduction (1GUI) Each annual Ontology Summit initiative makes a statement appropriate to each Summit s theme as part of our general advocacy designed to bring ontology science and engineering into the mainstream. The theme this year is "Towards an Open Ontology Repository". This communiqué represents the joint position of those who were engaged in the year's summit discourse on an Open Ontology Repository (OOR) and of those who endorse below. In this discussion, we have agreed that an "ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed." (1GUJ) We believe in the promise of semantic technologies based on logic, databases and the Semantic Web, a Web of exposed data and of interpretations of that data (i.e., of semantics), using common standards. Such technologies enable distinguishable, computable, reusable, and sharable meaning of Web and other artifacts, including data, documents, and services. We also believe that making that vision a reality requires additional supporting resources and these resources should be open, extensible, and provide common services over the ontologies. (1GUK) A number of controlled vocabularies and ontologies have been encoded in RDF, OWL, and other knowledge representation languages, but only a fraction of these have fostered significant reuse. While there are many issues that can limit the potential for reuse, a significant contributing factor is the lack of well-specified policies for vocabulary management, Your Visited Pages OntologySummit2008 Communique View Backlinks Wiki Search 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 2/12 metadata, and provenance specification. Several of the most prominent RDF vocabularies currently in use have emerged from a close collaboration between a relatively small community of developers and a larger community of users. The prominence of these vocabularies may be attributed to their utility, but also to the commitment, made by those responsible for developing and maintaining the vocabularies, to accommodating, serving, and working with a community of users. (ref.) In addition to a lack of policies and metadata, the lack of open and available infrastructure and services to support reuse is an impediment to adoption of these semantic technologies. (1GUL) The purpose of an Open Ontology Repository is to provide an architecture and an infrastructure that supports a) the creation, sharing, searching, and management of ontologies, and b) linkage to database and XML Schema structured data and documents. Complementary goals include fostering the ontology community, the identification and promotion of best practices, and the provision of services relevant to ontologies and instance stores. Examples of anticipated services include automated semantic interpretation of content expressed in knowledge representation languages, the creation and maintenance of mappings among disparate ontologies and content, and inference over this content. We believe that the Open Ontology Repository will ultimately support a broad range of semantic services and applications of interest to enterprises and communities. (1GUM) Achieving these goals will help reduce semantic ambiguity whenever and wherever information is shared, thereby allowing information to be located, searched, categorized, and exchanged with a more precise expression of its content and meaning. The artifacts of the repository will provide a semantic grounding for diverse formats and domains, ranging from the conceptual domains and specific disciplines of communities to technical schema such as WSDL, UDDI, RSS, and XML schema, and of course expressed in standard ontology languages such as RDF, OWL, Common Logic, and others. Perhaps most importantly, the repository will enable wide-scale knowledge re-use and reduce the need to re-invent the wheel when defining concepts and relationships that are already understood. (1GUN) These goals cannot be achieved all at once, and must track the evolution of best practices as well as technology itself. It is also good system development practice to bound complexity by defining a system in terms of a series of short-term, achievable objectives. For this reason, as for other such initiatives, it is envisioned that the Open Ontology Repository will be developed in a series of phases, proceeding from the simple to the complex, with achievable goals that capitalize on previous experience and the emergence of technology over time. It is important to note that in any given phase, planning and prototyping for subsequent phases is always in progress. (1GUO) 2. Requirements for an Open Ontology Repository (1GUP) The Ontolog community in the past year determined that the primary technical areas that needed to be discussed and illuminated to make the vision of an Open Ontology Repository a reality were the following: 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 3/12 1) determining the current state of the art in ontology repositories, 2) determining quality and gatekeeping criteria for registering and then provisioning ontologies and their instances, 3) developing an ontology of ontologies that would act as structure and metadata for registering ontologies and supporting the common repository of their instances, data, and services, and 4) developing a sound architecture for the envisioned Open Ontology Repository. Elaborations of these four technical areas together help to provide both specifications of requirements and the ideas and tools that could help to realize them. The remainder of this communiqué thus summarizes the results of the discussions in these four areas. (1GUQ) 3. State of the Art (1GUR) The purpose of this section is to set out the major design decisions and the technology choices which are important to the creation of ontology repositories. (1GUS) Ontology repositories support the storage, search, retrieval and interoperation of multiple ontologies. (1GUT) Ontology repositories support macro-level storage, query and retrieval (across the collection of ontologies) and micro-level operations (within individual ontologies). At each level we would like to support both text search, and semantic search (variously faceted search, SPARQL, ontology and ontology language literate search). Some ontology repositories have used the same technologies for both macro-level and micro-level operations. (1GUU) A key decision is the choice of a representation of the ontologies. Current practice includes: text, frames (e.g., OBO), graphs (e.g., RDF), and various types of logic, e.g., description logics (e.g., OWL-DL), first order logic (e.g., Common Logic), sorted logics, possibly higher order logic (HOL). Other possibilities include the use of UML (e.g., in the OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel). (1GUV) Ontologies have been stored in long narrow relations, e.g., "triple stores" of RDF triples (subject, relationship, object), relational databases, customized data stores. Increasingly implementers are using "quad stores" in order to support Named Graphs. "Column stores" such as MonetDB and Vertica have also been used to store ontologies. (1GUW) For the purposes of ontology interoperation it helps to have all of the ontologies in the repository encoded in a common representation. However, this requires the sometimes difficult and lossy translation of ontologies among various representations into the common representation. Some ontology repositories store ontologies in their native representation, with metadata to identify the representation language. (1GUX) We also need some way to support ontology interoperation by specifying the mappings among entities, e.g., via relationships such as same_as, is_a, and part_of. Other mapping relationships include: 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 4/12 see_also, similar_to. Some ontology mapping consistency checking tools check that mappings between partially ordered ontologies, e.g., taxonomies, preserve the partial orders. (1GUY) Many ontology repositories which support partially ordered ontologies (taxonomies and partonomies) may decide to materialize the transitive closure of the partial order relation. This provides faster query evaluation at the expense of additional ingestion costs, storage, and maintenance. (1GUZ) Provenance of definitions in ontologies is important to the credibility, scientific attribution, and regulatory compliance of ontologies. In particular, many definitions are embodied in legislation, administrative regulations, court decisions, professional society standards. (1GV0) Provenance and other metadata are distinguishing features of recent ontology repositories. Such metadata ranges from authorship, and creation date, version information, to evaluation and usage reports. Other metadata may include intended use (context). (1GV1) Modularization support is useful for large ontologies, and for facilitating the reuse and mapping of portions of ontologies. (1GV2) In a distributed setting, ontology repository developers increasingly are adopting Service Oriented Architectures (SOA), providing access, search, and other capabilities via web services. Two major approaches to SOA are REST and SOAP. REST is built on HTTP, with a small set of operators (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE) and the use of URL (or URI) addresses for all objects of interest. SOAP is based on XML RPCs. REST is much simpler to implement and should be adequate for typical ontology repository functions. SOAP is supported by a wide variety of software tools. Both SOA approaches are currently being used. (1GV3) Finally, an ontology repository typically facilitates access to a variety of ontology related tools: creation, editors, pretty printers, visualization tools, differencing tools, modularization tools, import / export, version management, access control, inference engines, explanation, summarization. (1GV4) 4. Quality and Gatekeeping (1GV5) We distinguish between gatekeeping and quality control. Gatekeeping criteria are a set of minimal requirements that any ontology within the OOR has to meet. The latter are intended to enable the users of the OOR to find quickly ontologies that fit their needs; the criteria are not supposed to ensure the quality of the ontologies. (1GV6) 4.1 Gatekeeping Criteria (1GV7) The ontologies in the OOR have to meet the following criteria: (1GV8) 1. The ontology is submitted in a publicly described language and format. (1GV9) 2. The ontology is read accessible. (1GVA) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 5/12 3. The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a well-defined syntax. (1GVB) 4. The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata as specified under section 5. (1GVC) 5. The ontology has a clearly specified and clearly delineated scope. (1GVD) 6. Successive versions of the ontology are clearly identified. (1GVE) 7. The ontology is appropriately named. (1GVF) It is particularly important that the required metadata include information about the process that is employed to create and maintain the ontology. (Is the ontology maintained in a cooperative and transparent process? Can anybody participate in this process?) Further, the metadata has to include information about the license under which the ontology is submitted. (1GVG) 4.2 Quality Control (1GVH) The community agrees that it is not sufficient for the OOR just to store ontologies, but that it needs to enable the evaluation of the ontologies within it. The OOR will offer functionalities like those on social networking sites which would allow users to comment on ontologies and rank them. Further, the OOR will enable selective views of the repository using tags provided by subcommunities that characterize ontologies with respect to their chosen criteria. For example, such a view might select for ontologies for specific fields of research or industries, or for ontologies satisfying specific quality criteria or levels of organizational approval. (1GVI) 5. Metadata for Ontologies (1GVJ) 5.1 Purpose of the Ontology Metadata (1GVK) The community agrees that it is not sufficient for the OOR just to store ontologies but that metadata for ontologies are necessary to support the sharing and reuse of ontologies within the repository. (1GVL) The metadata should allow users to: (1GVM) determine whether an ontology is suitable for a user purpose; (1GVN) capture the design rationales that underlie the ontology; (1GVO) find information about author, author credentials, and source of ontology reference material (1GVP) retrieve ontologies for use in domain applications; (1GVQ) retrieve ontologies to be integrated with other ontologies; (1GVR) retrieve ontologies that will be extended to create new ontologies; (1GVS) determine whether or not an ontology can be integrated with given ontologies; (1GVT) determine whether a set of ontologies retrieved from the repository can be used together; (1GVU) determine whether an ontology in the repository can be partially shared. (1GVV) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 6/12 The discussions surrounding the OntologySummit2007 provide a basis for understanding the metadata for ontologies. (1GVW) There should be policies for creation and modification of metadata and documentation of ontologies and the management of the persistence and sustainability of ontologies. (1GVX) Users (including end-users, ontology and repository developers, subject matter experts, stakeholders) should participate in the collaborative ontology development life cycle and in decisions regarding what metadata are suitable for ontologies in the repository. (1GVY) We can consider logical metadata (logical properties of the ontology independent of any implementation or engineering artifact) and engineering metadata (properties of the ontology considered as an engineering artifact). (1GVZ) 5.2 Logical Metadata (1GW0) 5.2.1 Language (1GW1) The first logical property is to identify the language used to specify the ontology. (1GW2) The report "Evaluating Reasoning Systems" contains a classification of formal languages used to specify ontologies. A formal language has a syntax (logical symbols together with a formally specified grammar) and a model theory (which specifies the conditions under which expressions in the language can be given particular truth assignments). (1GW3) A formalizable language has a syntax, although it does not have a model theory. Examples of such approaches include Topic Maps and folksonomies (which are writen in XML) and ISO 15926 (which is written in EXPRESS). (1GW4) Finally, some ontologies are only specified in natural language, including Wordnet , taxonomies, and thesauri. (1GW5) 5.2.2 Modularity (1GW6) A second property of ontologies is based on modularity -is a particular ontology a monolithic set of axioms, or is it composed of a set of smaller modules? Furthermore, is each module considered to be a separate ontology within the repository? If not, what are the relationships between the modules and which modules of an ontology can be used separately? (1GW7) For example, the Process Specification Language (PSL) consists of a set of modules which are extensions of a common core theory PSL-Core. Metadata for each module specifies which other modules must also be included when using the module. (1GW8) 5.2.3 Relationships between ontologies (1GW9) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 7/12 We can also specify various logical relationships between ontologies within the repository, including mutual consistency, extension, and entailment, and semantic mappings. (1GWA) 5.3 Engineering Metadata (1GWB) In addition to the logical metadata for ontologies, we need to specify metadata for ontologies as considered as engineering artefacts. This includes (1GWC) provenance (1GWD) versioning (1GWE) existing applications of the ontology (e.g. interoperability, search, decision support) (1GWF) domain-specificity (e.g. biology, supply chain management, manufacturing (1GWG) 5.4 Conclusions regarding Metadata (1GWH) The Ontology Metadata Vocabulary (OMV), Dublin Core, ISO 11179, ISO 19763, and other existing approaches to provenance and versioning metadata are all candidates for aspects of the metadata for ontologies in the OOR. (1GWI) We strongly urge an empirical approach to the identification and evaluation of ontology metadata. We should begin by collecting ontologies from Summit participants, and test out the different proposals for metadata on these ontologies. We should also develop use-case scenarios that will motivate the use of the metadata with these ontologies and help establish best practices. We especially challenge the participants in the UpperOntologySummit to create a prototype of the OOR that includes the upper ontologies. (1GWJ) 6 Repository Architecture (1GWK) The Architecture of a repository for enabling wide-scale searching and sharing of ontologies, must be open and extensible. The Architecture design should be modular in nature and provide for ontology storing, sharing, searching, governance, and management of the repository infrastructure and content. (1GWL) 6.1 Architecture Approach (1GWM) The core approach for the Open Ontology Repository is a federated, service oriented architecture. This approach provides for distributed ontology storage, repository management and service support. (1GWN) The overall assessment of the community is to enable open, distributed, federated repositories, and to provide metadata for each ontology registered, as well as providing connections for logical services, inference engines etc. (1GWO) Those who engage in the federation must include required metadata. This metadata must include any access constraints. (1GWP) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 8/12 Over the repository will be an ontology that is inclusive of both the metadata of ontologies and the information we need for operational use. (1GWQ) 6.2 Core Requirements (1GWR) The requirements presented are important to the enablement of widescale knowledge re-use. (1GWS) 1. The repository architecture shall be scalable. (1GWT) 2. The architecture shall be optimized for sharing, collaboration and reuse. (1GWU) 3. The repository shall be capable of supporting ontologies in multiple formats and levels of formalism. (1GWV) 4. The repository architecture shall support distributed repositories. (1GWW) 5. The repository architecture shall support explicit machine usable/accessible formal semantics for the meta-model of the repository. (1GWX) 6. The repository shall provide a mechanism to address intellectual property and related legal issues/problems. (1GWY) 7. The repository architecture shall include a core set of services, such as support for adding, searching and mapping across ontologies and data related to the stored ontologies. (1GWZ) 8. The repository architecture shall support additional services both directly within the province of the repository and as external services. (1GX0) 9. The repository should support all phases of the ontology lifecycle. (1GX1) 6.3 Repository Management (1GX2) An ontology repository requires mechanisms for effective management. The understanding is that as a repository and its infrastructure evolve, more management support mechanisms will be included. (1GX3) Required mechanisms will provide the capabilities to: (1GX4) 1. enforce access policies (1GX5) 2. enforce submission policies (1GX6) 3. enforce governance policies (1GX7) 4. enforce change management policies (1GX8) 5. control user and administrator access (1GX9) Highly recommended mechanisms will provide the capabilities to: (1GXA) 1. create usage reports (1GXB) 2. validate syntax (1GXC) 3. check logical consistency (1GXD) 4. automatically categorize a submission (1GXE) 6.4 Service and Application Support (1GXF) OOR interfaces should support internal and external services and applications including: (1GXG) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 9/12 Ontology creation tools (1GXH) Ontology editors (1GXI) Ontology differencing tools (1GXJ) Ontology modularization tools (clustering, etc.) (1GXK) Ontology export (1GXL) Ontology visualization (e.g., graph visualization) (1GXM) Version management (1GXN) Access control (1GXO) 6.5 Discovery Support (1GXP) To facilitate knowledge discovery the repository shall provide metadata capabilities to support search capabilities, governance process, and management. (1GXQ) The repository should support discovery by, for example: (1GXR) domain (1GXS) author/creator/source (1GXT) version (1GXU) language (1GXV) terminology and controlled vocabularies (1GXW) quality (1GXX) mapping (1GXY) inference (1GXZ) 7. Conclusion: Toward the Future (1GY0) We look forward to establishing an open ontology repository in the future that adheres to the requirements set forth above. We endorse an open ontology repository that seeks to honor and implement the following overarching mission requirements: (1GY1) 1. Supporting the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative that will promote the global use of ontologies, their instance bases, rules, and services, and mappings among these. (1GY2) 2. Enabling and facilitating open, federated, collaborative ontology repositories. (1GY3) 3. Establishing best practices for expressing interoperable ontology work in open registries/repositories. (1GY4) 4. Enabling and facilitating the development of common services to support the repository and to extend the capabilities available to providers, users, and developers who use the repository. (1GY5) We believe that creating this kind of infrastructure will facilitate the emerging Semantic Web. (1GY6) This Communiqué was reviewed, collaboratively edited, finalized and adopted by individuals present at the Ontology Summit 2008. (1GY7) Endorsed by: (1GY8) The above Communiqué has been endorsed by the individuals listed below. Please note that these people made their endorsements as 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 10/12 individuals and not as representatives of the organizations they are affiliated with. (1GY9) The following individuals were at the 2008.04.28/29 workshop and contributed to the fine tuning and finalization of the Communiqué: (1GZV) AlexGarcia (1GYA) AmandaVizedom (1GYB) Amy Davidson (BBN) (1GYC) BarrySmith (1GYD) BenjaminDai (1H13) BruceBargmeyer (1GYE) ConradBock (1GYF) DeborahMacPherson (1GYG) DeborahMcGuinness (1GYH) Doug Clark (Gard Associates) (1GYI) DougHolmes (1GYJ) ElisaKendall (1GYK) EvanWallace (1GYL) FabianNeuhaus (1GYM) Faheem Aziz (Northrop Grumman) (1GYN) FrankOlken (1GYO) Gail Hodge (Information International Associates) (1GYP) GaryBergCross (1GYQ) IndraNeilSarkar (1GYR) Joanne S Luciano (MITRE) (1GYS) JohnSowa (1GYT) K_Goodier (1GYU) KennethBaclawski (1GYV) LeoObrst (1GYW) LiDing (1GYX) Line Pouchard (Oak Ridge National Lab) (1GYY) Luis Bermudez (SURA) (1GYZ) MalaMehrotra (1GZ0) MarkMusen (1GZ1) Michael Pendleton (EPA) (1GZ2) MichaelGruninger (1GZ3) MichelleRaymond (1GZ4) MikeDean (1GZ5) NancyLawler (1GZ6) NatashaNoy (1GZX) PatrickCassidy (1GZ7) PeterBenson (1H00) PeterYim (1GZ8) RamSriram (1GZ9) RaviSharma (1GZA) SteveRay (1GZB) SusanTurnbull (1GZC) ThomasBrunner (1GZK) ToddSchneider (1GZD) Xiang Li (NIST) (1GZE) Individuals who emailed in their endorsement: (1GZW) 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 11/12 RickMurphy (1GZI) RexBrooks (1GZJ) FrankAlvidrez (1GZL) KathyLesh (1GZM) BonnieSwart (1GZY) Xuan Zha (Extension Systems International) (1GZZ) Richard Lee (Booz Allen Hamilton) (1H01) MatthewWest (1H02) SeanBoisen (1H03) RonWheeler (1H04) EdDodds (1H05) AntoinetteArsic (1H12) CarlMattocks (1H14) OthelRolle (1H1A) AnnWrightson (1H6N) JohnBateman (1HSA) DilvanMoreira (1IWS) MarciaZeng (1K1U) CameronRoss (2HMU) a pdf version of this Communique can be downloaded here. (3ANB) original working draft can be reviewed at: /Draft (1B40) This page is maintained by LeoObrst, MarkMusen, BarrySmith and PeterYim Please do not edit or modify yourself; send any editing request to any one of the individuals named above. (1GZN) View other revisions Last edited May 5, 2012 13:17 (diff) RSS Search Search ontolog.cim3.net Search cim3.net Search WWW 11/21/2017 OntologWiki: OntologySummit2008 Communique http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008_Communique.html 12/


Philosophy

Original Paper Conflicting Aims and Values in the Application of Smart Sensors in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Ethical Analysis Christopher Predel1, MD; Cristian Timmermann1, DPhil; Frank Ursin1, DPhil; Marcin Orzechowski1, Dr rer soz; Timo Ropinski2, Prof Dr; Florian Steger1, Prof Dr 1Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany 2Visual Computing Group, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany Corresponding Author: Christopher Predel, MD Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine Ulm University Parkstrasse 11 Ulm, 89073 Germany Phone: 49 228257273 Email: email@example.com Abstract Background: Smart sensors have been developed as diagnostic tools for rehabilitation to cover an increasing number of geriatric patients. They promise to enable an objective assessment of complex movement patterns. Objective: This research aimed to identify and analyze the conflicting ethical values associated with smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation and provide ethical guidance on the best use of smart sensors to all stakeholders, including technology developers, health professionals, patients, and health authorities. Methods: On the basis of a systematic literature search of the scientific databases PubMed and ScienceDirect, we conducted a qualitative document analysis to identify evidence-based practical implications of ethical relevance. We included 33 articles in the analysis. The practical implications were extracted inductively. Finally, we carried out an ethical analysis based on the 4 principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. The results are reported in categories based on these 4 principles. Results: We identified 8 conflicting aims for using smart sensors. Gains in autonomy come at the cost of patient privacy. Smart sensors at home increase the independence of patients but may reduce social interactions. Independent measurements performed by patients may result in lower diagnostic accuracy. Although smart sensors could provide cost-effective and high-quality diagnostics for most patients, minorities could end up with suboptimal treatment owing to their underrepresentation in training data and studies. This could lead to algorithmic biases that would not be recognized by medical professionals when treating patients. Conclusions: The application of smart sensors has the potential to improve the rehabilitation of geriatric patients in several ways. It is important that patients do not have to choose between autonomy and privacy and are well informed about the insights that can be gained from the data. Smart sensors should support and not replace interactions with medical professionals. Patients and medical professionals should be educated about the correct application and the limitations of smart sensors. Smart sensors should include an adequate representation of minorities in their training data and should be covered by health insurance to guarantee fair access. (JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022;10(6):e32910) doi: 10.2196/32910 KEYWORDS personal data; wearable; older adults; autonomy; rehabilitation; smart sensor; machine learning; ethics; access to health care; justice JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 1https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX Introduction Regular physical activity reduces the risk of many chronic diseases and can significantly contribute to rehabilitation. Geriatric patients are often affected by reduced exercise capacity, which leads to mobility restrictions and dependence on support in daily life [1]. Diagnostic methods can be used to assess physical activity levels for enhancing rehabilitation. These include patient-reported outcomes and clinical gait analyses. A limitation of the methods currently in use is that the delivered data are often difficult to objectify [2]. To overcome this limitation, technology developers and physicians have begun to use smart sensors [3]. Smart sensors combine the measurement and analysis of data. They can collect a wide range of data and can be used in different application areas [4]. In this analysis, we focus on the ethical evaluation of smart sensors that use inertial sensors and machine learning algorithms to record and analyze complex movement patterns. For this purpose, patients receive wearable inertial sensors that record the acceleration in space. Using machine learning techniques, these inertial data can be assigned to complex movement patterns, such as standing up from a chair, opening a door, or even falling. Thus, it is possible to record the activity patterns of patients and quantify their daily activity [5]. In this manner, clinicians can objectively assess patients' daily physical activity and identify their treatment needs. Care and rehabilitation measures can be individually adapted, and treatment progress can be documented [6]. Rehabilitation of geriatric patients using smart sensor technology has the potential to increase the quality of life for many patients. However, the recording of such data monitors all daily activities can be negatively associated with patient surveillance. The high vulnerability of geriatric patients and the special characteristics of machine learning algorithms also raise ethical challenges, which will be discussed in this paper. We concentrate our research on the following question: What are the ethical challenges of using smart sensors and how can they be minimized? Our goal is to identify and analyze the different ethical values associated with smart sensors and their potential conflicts, and based on this ethical analysis, provide guidance to all stakeholders, including technology developers, health professionals, patients, and health authorities. Methods This research is an ethical analysis that aims to examine the ethical challenges associated with smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation. Systematic Literature Search First, the literature on smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation was identified through a systematic literature search. We then inductively extracted evidence-based practical implications of ethical relevance through qualitative document analysis. PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were used to identify published literature between January 2000 and November 2020. The search was supplemented by using Google Scholar. The literature search was carried out using the following steps: first, identification and definition of the research question and creation of a search algorithm; second, identification of relevant studies; third, selection of studies; and fourth, reporting of the results in an ethical analysis based on the principle-oriented approach of Beauchamp and Childress [7]. Therefore, we combined 2 research methods that are frequently used to assess the ethical issues of new developments in medical practice: a systematic review of all ethical aspects and a systematic review of all ethical values [8,9]. As smart sensors are a novel technology, common synonyms and related terms have been used to avoid missing relevant literature. The search algorithm combined the keywords smart sensor, wearable electronic devices, wearable, intelligent assistive technology and internet of things with the keywords geriatric, elderly, rehabilitation, or dementia and ethics, privacy, empowerment, harm, caregiver, discrimination, informed consent or autonomy in the titles and abstracts of articles. Owing to the limited number of eligible ethical analyses, articles on the use of sensors in the care of older adults, in general, were also included. The results of these articles were translated by analogy to the application of rehabilitation. Articles that discussed only the implementation, development, or technical specifications of sensor technologies or algorithms were excluded. No restrictions on article type were imposed. The search algorithm yielded 701 results (Figure 1). Additional 15 articles were identified through hand search using Google Scholar. After removing duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, 51 articles were considered eligible. After reviewing the full text, 18 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The excluded articles focused on younger patients, analyzed different purposes of the application such as sports or lifestyle, or analyzed other technologies, such as robots. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 2https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX Figure 1. Flowchart of the systematic literature search to identify evidence-based practical implications of applying smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation resembling the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A total of 33 articles were included in this ethical analysis. First, the content of the articles was screened for key information of ethical significance. The content of these articles contains evidence-based practical implications for the application of smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation. Thematic Analysis Second, a thematic analysis was performed. This is a qualitative approach for identifying, analyzing, and reporting common patterns or themes in narratives or text materials. Articles were explored for recurring themes with a focus on the different values and aims of smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation [10,11]. Ethical Analysis Third, the identified practical implications of ethical relevance were grouped, and an ethical analysis was conducted using the principle-oriented approach of Beauchamp and Childress [7]. If an ethical issue could be examined under more than one ethical principle, we opted to report the issue under the principle that was better suited to highlight ethical conflicts. For reducing biases and omissions, the included articles were critically examined by at least two authors, as recommended for systematic reviews of normative literature [12,13]. We pooled the main ethical issues together after an exchange between the authors in dichotomous pairs of conflicting aims and values. In the following sections, we propose an assessment tool for the ethical evaluation of smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation. With our tool, physicians, along with their patients, will be able to assess which values are more important to them in each individual case and then weigh the different values against each other. Results In this section, we report the ethical challenges identified in the systematic literature search, grouping them under the 4 principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Autonomy Respect for autonomy is a fundamental principle of biomedical ethics and requires ensuring that the patient's will is respected, unless it is in direct conflict with other fundamental values and professional duties. It includes the negative obligation to not constrain a patient's actions unnecessarily and the positive obligation to disclose information that fosters decision-making. Measures that empower patients tend to increase their autonomy, whereas interventions that directly restrict their liberties or make them hesitant to act freely, restrict patients' autonomy. The use of smart sensors in rehabilitation can empower patients by increasing their proactive participation in diagnostics and allowing them an independent life at home. Patients who were asked about the use of wearables in rehabilitation indicated that JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 3https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX they expected to be empowered by this technology to manage their own health conditions more effectively [14]. Continuous feedback on the progress of the rehabilitation can motivate patients to become physically active and continue therapy [14-16]. Furthermore, it could provide patients with a deeper understanding of their illness and physical condition [17]. Efficient rehabilitation, aided by smart sensors, can reduce the need for long-term care. Rehabilitation can be supplemented by fall detection and home monitoring, enabling patients to stay at home independently for longer [18,19]. In addition, 58% of patients using fall detectors had improved independence and 72% felt more confident [20]. Through their proactive participation in health management and the possibility of living at home independently for a longer time, patients' autonomy is increased by the use of smart sensors. Privacy Privacy can be defined as an interest, or even as a right, to be free from intrusion in personal matters, unless major public interests justify such an invasion [21]. When using smart sensors, the protection of privacy requires a person to be left alone when asked and not be monitored without expressed wishes. In contrast, data privacy is concerned with the sensitive handling of data, including their access and use by third parties [22]. Privacy concerns are one of the biggest hurdles for patients in the application of supportive technologies [23]. In a study, Canadian stakeholders were interviewed regarding the challenges of active assisted living technologies. In 30% of the mentions, privacy and security were identified as primary issues [24]. Monitoring patients' day-to-day activities is highly intrusive. The feeling of being constantly monitored and ubiquitous medical diagnostics can lead to stress and anxiety and may compel patients to adapt their behavior. The evaluation of all daily activities and a desire to achieve good measurement results can lead to excessive physical activity. In a study in which the daily physical activity of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was measured using sensors, it was shown that participants had a 26% higher activity than the average during the first few days monitored with sensor technology [25]. In the context of rehabilitation of geriatric patients, this may lead to stress and overload symptoms. In consequence, injuries and falls can occur more often. Patients'perceptions of privacy loss are significantly influenced by the intrusiveness of the technology used [18,26]. Owing to their low-threshold use, smart sensors offer the potential to minimize the feeling of surveillance through a low degree of intrusiveness and by only collecting data related to preselected complex movement patterns. Studies have shown that patients using smart sensors do not feel violated in their privacy [27]. Patients prefer sensors that can only monitor whether they are active and do not identify specific activities [28]. In most cases, it is not clear whether, to what extent and by whom, the gathered data could be analyzed to conclude information about patients that was not willingly shared by them. Patients must be informed of the conclusions drawn from the data. From movement data, it is possible, for example, to analyze how often patients use the bathroom, whether they drink alcohol, or whether they are sexually active. It must be discussed with the patient which activities should and could be tracked. Patients should be trained to switch off or dismount sensors when privacy is desired so that they are free to undertake the activities they value and do not have to make unnecessary sacrifices to maintain an image of themselves that they are comfortable sharing with the medical team. As nonmaleficence demands not depriving people from a good they value, loss of privacy can also be seen as a form of harm [29]. Shared Decision-making When adequately introduced, the use of smart sensors can improve the patient-medical professional relationship and increase autonomy by strengthening the patient's role as an equal partner. Medical professionals and patients can make therapeutic decisions together, based on data collected by the patient [16,30,31]. Empirical studies have assessed the impact of smart sensors on patient-physician relationships. Patients were asked whether they expected a change in their relationship with their medical professional through wearable technology during rehabilitation. They stated that they expected an improvement in communication and a more patient-centered consultation due to the improved and objective data gathered on their activities [14]. Patients using smart sensors expressed that they were well informed and that decision-making between medical professionals and patients could be improved [32]. Furthermore, the diagnostic process is no longer limited to a visit to the medical practice or hospital; it also takes place beyond these settings. Thus, patients can receive medical support in everyday life [33]. Smart sensor technology used at home can be designed to facilitate contact with medical professionals [34,35]. Beneficence Overview and General Aspects The principle of beneficence dictates the orientation of health professionals' actions toward the well-being of patients. This demands that health professionals make use of both their professional and interpersonal skills to improve the situation of patients, particularly in helping them to fulfill their wish to live in their own homes, while ensuring that such choices do not come at the cost of losing all types of bonds with them. An advantage of smart sensors is the possibility of independent home monitoring. Long-term home monitoring can provide objective movement data on patients' everyday life. This can increase the well-being of patients by allowing them to remain in the comfort of their own homes, but it can also reduce the number of social contacts [27,36]. In addition, sensors can contribute to patient safety by extending the monitoring phase after surgery or by identifying patients at a risk of adverse events. Objective Assessment of Daily Activities Previously, therapy requirements and progress have been determined using gait analyses or patient-reported outcomes. These have high interand intraobserver variability and are mostly carried out in a clinical setting [37]. In contrast, sensor technology offers the possibility of objective long-term home monitoring. This has the advantage that the complex movement JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 4https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX patterns of patients can be analyzed in everyday situations and over a longer period [38]. Decisions for or against a rehabilitative measure can therefore be made from a broad database. Patients can receive therapy adapted to their everyday life [16]. Thus, autonomy and independence can be promoted in everyday life to benefit patients. Extended Monitoring and Injury Prevention The use of smart sensors can lead to more individualized therapies for geriatric patients in their homes. Geriatric patients have a high acceptance of sensory technology for long-term home monitoring during rehabilitation [28]. After surgery, patients often remain in the ward for several days for monitoring. Sensor technology can significantly extend monitoring time without the need to keep patients hospitalized. Thus, treatment needs, which only become clear in the patient's everyday life after discharge, can be identified. Patients benefit from greater security without having to spend more time in the hospital. Owing to the low-threshold use of smart sensors, opportunities for screening and prevention have expanded. People who are expected to need treatment in the future because of hospital stays, comorbidities, or old age can wear sensors in their everyday life. If conspicuous movement patterns appear, practitioners can be informed, enabling them to assess an intervention or rehabilitation need. Thus, the user can benefit from preventive intervention [3]. Furthermore, sensor technology can be used by risk groups to identify and prevent critical events, such as falls [39]. For many patients, an increased sense of security is one of the main reasons for using sensor technology [40,41]. A total of 85% of patients who used a fall detector stated that it improved their safety [20]. The large amount of data collected by smart sensors can be used by machine learning algorithms to detect different anomalies and then take early steps to address health threats. If a patient goes to the bathroom more often than usual, it could be a sign of urinary tract infection or diabetes mellitus. A decrease in the number of outdoor activities could be a result of depression. It must be determined which activities the sensor technology should record and whether findings must be interpreted as relevant for rehabilitation. Nonmaleficence The principle of nonmaleficence indicates that new medical technologies should not disadvantage or harm patients through medical intervention or even diagnosis. The biggest threats to using smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation are the misuse of patients' private data and the uncritical acceptance of data provided by the sensors. A major threat to patients is the misuse of data by unauthorized persons. Cyberattacks can steal data from various devices and servers. Owing to the interconnectivity between smart sensors and digital health records, as well as the multiple users and use outside of protected hospital networks, smart sensors represent vulnerable targets for cyberattacks [42]. Accuracy In the detection of complex movement patterns, inaccurate activity detections can occur and cause harm to patients. Algorithms may not recognize or they may misclassify movements [19]. Incorrectly classified events can lead to an overestimation of patient's health. Conversely, the need for rehabilitation or lack of therapeutic success can be overlooked [17]. Therefore, uncritical acceptance of movement data by medical professionals poses a risk to patients. Sensors can support the medical professional's subjective assessment of care needs with objective data, but cannot replace a complete examination [43]. By increasing the autonomy of patients, there has also been a shift in the roles of patients and medical professionals. The patient is the one who has to apply the sensor technology. As a result, the expectation is placed on the patient to provide high-quality data. Therefore, patients gain more responsibility in the diagnostic process. This could lead to more autonomy but could also jeopardize data quality [44]. Missing Holistic Assessment By reducing direct contact with medical professionals and relying more on smart sensors, there is a risk of patients being reduced to the data collected [17]. Social contact with medical professionals is an essential component of therapy. Collecting data on only one physiological parameter, such as movement patterns, does not provide a holistic assessment of health conditions and the rehabilitation process. A holistic assessment can only be discerned through direct interaction with health care professionals [27,34]. Successful treatment requires contact with a medical professional who communicates the results of a diagnosis with empathy and is aware of the patient's circumstances [30]. The feeling of being monitored can reduce the trust between patients and medical professionals and the acceptance of sensor technology. Moreover, patients may overestimate the accuracy and potential of smart sensors [19]. Justice Overview and General Aspects The principle of justice refers to 2 distinct principles: first, that like cases be treated alike and second, to a fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution of health care in society. This demands that every patient should have adequate access to essential health care, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, or socioeconomic status [7]. Smart sensors are expensive and can therefore lead to discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic differences. Owing to the dependence on the accuracy of the training data, algorithmic analyses could lead to a discrimination against minorities that are underrepresented in the training data. Geriatric patients who have less experience with technical tools can be at a disadvantage. Conversely, patients living in underserved regions may benefit from the use of sensors in combination with telemedicine. In addition, the success of rehabilitation measures aided by smart sensors depends on the capability of users to use digital technologies, or more broadly, their digital literacy. Socioeconomic Differences High prices during early technology adoption lead to inequalities in access to personalized rehabilitation. For many patients, the acceptance and adoption of sensors depends on their cost [45]. The use of wearable sensors such as smartwatches shows major demographic and socioeconomic differences. Mainly young, wealthy people buy smartwatches [23]. An additional negative consequence is that smart sensors are optimized on these early JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 5https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX adopters, basing the algorithms and the design of the software and hardware on a subpopulation that does not reflect the diversity of the population with rehabilitation needs. New developments that do not solely rely on external systems and are adapted for the geriatric population could overcome this limitation. If sensors are not covered by health insurance and must be purchased by the patients themselves, there will be major inequalities in the medical care of the population [46]. Discrimination of Vulnerable Groups The diagnostic accuracy of smart sensors and the algorithms used by them depends on the training data. Thus, there are differences in accuracy depending on the population group. Population groups that are underrepresented in the training data do not benefit from a high algorithmic output accuracy. They must adapt to the standard defined by the training data even if their movement patterns are normal for their group [17,47]. Furthermore, the movement patterns of men and women differ in some aspects. An algorithm trained using male movement data has a higher output accuracy for men than for women. Similar conclusions can be drawn for other population groups, such as older adults. Studies have shown that it is possible to predict the gender and age of participants with inertial data from gait analysis [26]. There is also a risk of disparity between age groups. The use and function of technical devices are difficult to understand for many older adults. The application of smart sensors in the context of geriatric rehabilitation requires extensive training and education of patients so that they can learn the limitations and correct application of sensor technology and thus benefit from its advantages [46]. Monitoring technologies can cause feelings of stigma and frailty in geriatric patients [27]. Their use can be seen by patients as an admission of frailty and illness to themselves and the social environment [48]. Wearing sensors in public can reveal illnesses or disabilities to strangers [27,49]. In order to mitigate this, smart sensors can be integrated into clothes or smart watches [50]. By giving patients the opportunity to choose between different types of application, the feeling of stigma can be actively reduced. Increasing Numbers of Patients Can Be Treated Smart sensors have the potential to provide high-quality care to each patient. The quality of human-influenced treatment depends heavily on the experiences, prejudices, and daily constitution of medical professionals. Smart sensors developed and evaluated in congruence with ethical principles offer the possibility of consistently delivering high-quality treatment [51]. Owing to automated data collection and processing, smart sensors offer the possibility of treating more patients at a consistent and even higher quality of care. In many places, there is a supply gap between urban and rural areas in specialized medical care. By using smart sensors in combination with telemedicine, patients in underserved regions can be connected to medical specialists [3]. As previously discussed, this requires extensive training, which not all patients, especially geriatric patients, can follow. Furthermore, fair access to new promising technologies, such as smart sensors, must be guaranteed in rural areas. Discussion Principal Findings: Conflicting Aims and Values Our ethical analysis showed that the rehabilitation of geriatric patients can generally be improved using smart sensors. However, we found conflicting values and aims that doctors and patients must consider when using smart sensors for rehabilitation. The use of smart sensors involves 4 pairs of conflicting ethical values and aims, which patients should sufficiently understand to provide informed consent and maintain compliance with optimal use (Figure 2). Figure 2. Conflicting aims and values. Proactive participation in diagnostics and gaining independence can increase patient autonomy. However, gains in autonomy come at the cost of privacy. Owing to the continuous monitoring of patients' daily activities, privacy can be violated if sensors are too intrusive, and patients have no control over their data. Moreover, when patients are aware that they are being surveilled, they may refrain from doing certain things that they value. In contrast to smart sensors in dementia care, sensors that are used in rehabilitation are not intended to be used for surveillance, but for promoting autonomy by assisting rehabilitation measures. Increased autonomy and the benefits JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 6https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX of home monitoring conflict with protecting patients' privacy. The treatment team receives sensitive information using sensor technology in everyday life. The use of wearable technologies carries the risk of increasing the intended or unintended disclosure of sensitive health information [52]. This information is not consciously shared by patients with a specific health professional but is automatically collected by a technical instrument. It might not always be clear to patients who has access to this information and what the data reveal. To guarantee confidentiality of the information collected by sensors, authorized recipients must be specifically defined. It is important that the patient be educated about the extent of the invasion of their privacy. Therefore, medical professionals must understand what conclusions can be drawn from the data in addition to the daily activity patterns. It is crucial to keep in mind that future developments could allow further data analysis and thus reveal unforeseen information, which could extend the invasion of patient privacy. Smart sensors are an attractive target for cyberattacks, because they collect valuable data and are often used in unprotected private settings. To protect the privacy of patients, it is important that service providers protect the data from unauthorized access and misuse. Regular secure backups, anonymization of the data, and limiting remotely accessible data can reduce the risk of data theft. Patients must be adequately informed and educated about this risk, ways to reduce it, and how they can avoid being monitored when privacy is desired [42]. Studies have shown that most patients do not feel that their privacy is violated by the use of smart sensors and are willing to give up some of their privacy for increased autonomy [28,41,53]. Depending on the amount of autonomy gained and the degree of invasion of privacy, there is a different level of willingness to use this technology. Older people who have an increased risk of falls or who would benefit from rehabilitative measures could consent to the invasion of their privacy by motion sensors in exchange for increased safety and autonomy [37,47]. In contrast, less vulnerable patients may have fewer reasons to allow wider intrusion in their personal life. Overall, patients need to weigh the autonomy gained with the use of smart sensors against eventual losses of autonomy by feeling compelled to adapt their behavior when monitored. Independent measurements are the principal reason for using smart sensors at home and for monitoring daily activities; however, if patients are not sufficiently trained in the use of the sensors, it can lead to decreased accuracy of the data. Independent measures can increase patient autonomy and provide the opportunity to monitor daily activity patterns; however, they come at the cost of a decreased number of social interactions with medical professionals and reduced accuracy. Independent measurements provide the opportunity to live longer at home and generate objective data that represent daily activity patterns, but they could reduce the number of social interactions with medical professionals. It is important that the sensor technology and underlying algorithm be supportive and not replace the diagnostic process. Before deciding for or against an intervention, the treatment team should have direct contact with the patient [54]. Sensors can support medical professionals' subjective assessments of care needs using objective data [43]. The treatment team should critically question and contextualize the algorithmic output at any time [17]. As smart sensors reduce the number of social contacts with medical professionals, it is important to keep in mind that solitude is one of the largest welfare and mental health issues among older adults [55]. Although medical treatment may be the only social activity of a significant number of older adults, it should be noted that such interactions do not solve the problem of solitude. Better alternatives outside the therapeutic context should be offered for public mental health. To improve the accuracy of the sensor technology, developers need to work on the accuracy of smart sensors if they are used for monitoring patients at risk. Medical professionals need to be aware that some measures that require high precision may need to be carried out under their direct supervision and that there are limits on what can be accurately measured outside clinical settings. Training should be given on the correct application of the sensors to empower the patient to increase the accuracy of the measurements. To justify the use of public health resources, it is necessary to prove the increased effectiveness of sensor technology compared with conventional methods. A cost-effectiveness calculation of the use of smart sensors needs to fully recognize the multiple advantages of increased mobility for older adults' well-being. In view of the long-term health benefits of increased mobility, access to smart sensors for rehabilitation should be independent of the patient's socioeconomic status. To guarantee fair distribution, sensor technology should be prescribed by a physician and covered by health insurance. To ensure patient participation in areas with limited access, the technology should be designed such that it can be used independently or at least with the easy assistance of family members. Specialists can be contacted during anomalies [34]. We conclude that smart sensors can provide high-quality, low-cost measurement tools for many patients. However, because algorithms are seldom developed and tested for diverse populations, minorities may be at a disadvantage. With regard to the principle of social justice, the provision of modern health care appliances for patients, such as smart sensors, requires that they are able to efficiently use them in their daily life. Smart sensors can enhance access to health care for underserved populations. However, here, as in the case of other digital instruments in health care, the opportunities provided by smart sensors are subjected to adequate use and can result in significant inequalities with respect to who can use and benefit from them [56]. The foremost is the ability to understand and use digital technologies, digital literacy. This ability is heterogenic and conditioned by several components; for example, skills, resources, and motivations. It has been observed that the level of literacy in the use of digital technologies is associated with social attributes of patients, such as age, level of education, health literacy in general, language barriers, immigration status, and urban or rural residence [57]. Older adult users face additional barriers when using digital technologies [58]. Extensive training and education are required regarding the use of smart sensors. Deficits in trust in digital health instruments, lack of previous experience with similar JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 7https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX appliances, low levels of education, or language barriers can significantly impede this process. Smart sensors have been used in geriatric rehabilitation. It has been shown that sensors can support the rehabilitation process by providing objective monitoring of a patient's activity level [6,59]. Thus, medical professionals can define and examine rehabilitation targets along with patients to track the process. By using sensors, it is possible to compare the individual progress of a patient with the expected average progress of other patients with similar comorbidities. Activity levels can be tracked outside the therapy session. The data could be used to justify the extension of rehabilitation measures to insurance companies [6,59]. The current implementations have already addressed some of the ethical challenges mentioned in this paper, but they were used in a hospital setting. Patients were always able to communicate problems or discomfort with the sensors to medical professionals. To decrease the feeling of surveillance, the sensors were located on the lower back of the patients [6]. Recommendations Our principal recommendation is to consider multiple factors affecting digital literacy in the process of patient education to facilitate the effective use of smart sensors. Second, patients should not have to decide between autonomy and privacy. Developers should aim at providing solutions that promote patient autonomy while also ensuring privacy by collecting minimal amounts of data necessary to operate effectively. The standard for the ethical implementation of smart sensors should follow four prerequisites: (1) smart sensors can be activated and deactivated by the patient, (2) smart sensors are not visible to the public, (3) smart sensors only collect activity data over which a patient has control, and (4) they collect the minimal amount of data needed to allow an accurate diagnosis. In some cases, we may observe that patients refuse to sacrifice their privacy for increased autonomy. In such cases, it must be evaluated together with patients whether and to what extent this intrusion into privacy needs to be tolerated, how it can be minimized, and how great the actual benefit of sensors is for the patient in comparison with alternative treatment options. Further recommendations for developers, patient education, health professionals, and health authorities are summarized in Textbox 1. Textbox 1. Recommendations for developers, medical professionals, and health authorities. Developers • Authorized recipients that have access to specific data must be defined. • Data need to be protected from unauthorized access and misuse. • Smart sensors should be activated and deactivated by the patient. • Smart sensors should not be visible to the public. • Smart sensors should only collect activity data over which a patient has control. • Minimal amount of data needed to allow an accurate diagnosis should be collected. • In order to ensure patient participation in areas with limited access, the technology should be designed so that it can be used independently, or at least easily, with the assistance of family members. • Contact with specialists in the event of anomalies should be facilitated. Patient education • Education of the patient about the extent of invasion of privacy and the conclusions that can be drawn from the data must be done. • Training should be given on the correct application of the sensors to empower the patient to increase the accuracy of measurements. Medical professionals • Smart sensors should augment and not replace the diagnostic process. The treatment team should have direct contact to the patient. • Algorithmic outputs should be contextualized and questioned critically. • Medical professionals should be aware of the limits and accuracy of smart sensors. Health authorities • It is necessary to prove an increased effectiveness of sensor technology compared with conventional methods to justify the use of public health resources. A cost-effectiveness calculation of the use of smart sensors needs to fully recognize the multiple advantages that increased mobility has for older adults' well-being. • To guarantee a fair distribution, sensor technology should be prescribed by a physician and covered by health insurance. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 8https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX Limitations and Comparison With Prior Work There are already several articles that analyzed the ethical challenges of smart wearable sensors, but no article focused on smart sensors for geriatric rehabilitation [18,31]. Much of the current literature primarily discusses the ethical challenges of intelligent assistive technologies for monitoring geriatric patients, particularly in dementia care [18,60]. There are also articles that discuss issues with smart sensors used for activity and mobility monitoring. These articles focus on healthy or younger participants and rarely discuss the issues of smart sensors used by geriatric patients in rehabilitation [61,62]. Some articles discuss the use of other technologies, such as telemedicine or apps for self-management and tracking in rehabilitation [63,64]. However, these articles do not analyze the specific ethical issues associated with tools that are based on machine learning algorithms. A limitation of this study is that it did not examine the subjective perceptions of the main stakeholders. Empirical ethical studies in the field of smart sensors are insufficient. Further work is needed to investigate the ethical insights of health professionals using smart sensors and to study the experiences of patients who use such sensors. Conclusions Smart sensors offer an opportunity for the objective assessment of complex movement patterns and rehabilitation progress. Medical professionals must consider and address multiple conflicting ethical aims. One conflict in aims is that gains in autonomy often come at the cost of patient privacy. It is important that patients are educated on the insights that the collected data reveal and do not have to decide between autonomy and privacy. Furthermore, smart sensors should not replace but instead promote interaction with medical professionals. As smart sensors are complex and novel tools, medical professionals and patients should be educated on their correct applications and their limitations. Sensors should be covered by insurance to guarantee equal access to health care. Acknowledgments This paper is part of the Identification of Complex Activity Patterns through Smart Sensors in Geriatric Rehabilitation (AktiSmart-KI) project funded by the Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG). Conflicts of Interest None declared. References 1. Motl RW, McAuley E. Physical activity, disability, and quality of life in older adults. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2010 May;21(2):299-308. [doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2009.12.006] [Medline: 20494278] 2. Polhemus AM, Bergquist R, Bosch de Basea M, Brittain G, Buttery SC, Chynkiamis N, et al. Walking-related digital mobility outcomes as clinical trial endpoint measures: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open 2020 Jul 19;10(7):e038704 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038704] [Medline: 32690539] 3. Patel S, Park H, Bonato P, Chan L, Rodgers M. A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012 Apr 20;9:21 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-21] [Medline: 22520559] 4. Chan M, Estève D, Fourniols J, Escriba C, Campo E. Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med 2012 Nov;56(3):137-156. [doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003] [Medline: 23122689] 5. Penteridis L, D'Onofrio G, Sancarlo D, Giuliani F, Ricciardi F, Cavallo F, et al. Robotic and sensor technologies for mobility in older people. Rejuvenation Res 2017 Oct;20(5):401-410. [doi: 10.1089/rej.2017.1965] [Medline: 28482748] 6. Klenk J, Wekenmann S, Schwickert L, Lindemann U, Becker C, Rapp K. Change of objectively-measured physical activity during geriatric rehabilitation. Sensors (Basel) 2019 Dec 11;19(24):5451 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.3390/s19245451] [Medline: 31835673] 7. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxfordshire, England, UK: Oxford University Press; 1979. 8. Mertz M. How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper). BMC Med Ethics 2019 Nov 14;20(1):81 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5] [Medline: 31727134] 9. Mertz M, Strech D, Kahrass H. What methods do reviews of normative ethics literature use for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis? In-depth results from a systematic review of reviews. Syst Rev 2017 Dec 19;6(1):261 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0661-x] [Medline: 29258598] 10. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405. [doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048] [Medline: 23480423] 11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006 Jan;3(2):77-101. [doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa] 12. Kahrass H, Borry P, Gastmans C, Ives J, van der Graaf R, Strech D, et al. PRISMA-Ethics – Reporting Guideline for Systematic Reviews on Ethics Literature: development, explanations and examples. OSF 2021 (forthcoming) [FREE Full text] 13. Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics 2012 Feb;38(2):121-126 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100096] [Medline: 22080465] JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 9https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX 14. Belsi A, Papi E, McGregor AH. Impact of wearable technology on psychosocial factors of osteoarthritis management: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2016 Feb 03;6(2):e010064 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010064] [Medline: 26842273] 15. Barton AJ. Wearable technology to enhance remote monitoring and self-management. Clin Nurse Spec 2015;29(1):6-7. [doi: 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000088] [Medline: 25469433] 16. Appelboom G, Camacho E, Abraham ME, Bruce SS, Dumont EL, Zacharia BE, et al. Smart wearable body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring. Arch Public Health 2014;72(1):28 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-28] [Medline: 25232478] 17. Rubeis G. The disruptive power of Artificial Intelligence. Ethical aspects of gerontechnology in elderly care. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020 Jul 15;91:104186. [doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104186] [Medline: 32688106] 18. Ienca M, Wangmo T, Jotterand F, Kressig RW, Elger B. Ethical design of intelligent assistive technologies for dementia: a descriptive review. Sci Eng Ethics 2018 Aug;24(4):1035-1055. [doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9976-1] [Medline: 28940133] 19. Ganyo M, Dunn M, Hope T. Ethical issues in the use of fall detectors. Ageing Soc 2011 Feb 07;31(8):1350-1367. [doi: 10.1017/s0144686x10001443] 20. Brownsell S, Hawley MS. Automatic fall detectors and the fear of falling. J Telemed Telecare 2004;10(5):262-266. [doi: 10.1258/1357633042026251] [Medline: 15494083] 21. DeCew J. Privacy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). 2018. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/ cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=privacy [accessed 2021-02-12] 22. Mittelstadt B, Fairweather N, Shaw M, McBride N. Ethical issues of personal health monitoring: a literature review. The Research Center on Values in Emerging Science and Technology. URL: https://rcvest.southernct.edu/ ethical-issues-of-personal-health-monitoring-a-literature-review/ [accessed 2021-02-01] 23. Tochen D. Wearable devices adoption poised to hit the mainstream. YouGovAmerica. URL: https://today.yougov.com/ topics/technology/articles-reports/2016/08/15/wearable-devices-adoption-poised-growth-despite-la [accessed 2021-01-20] 24. Fadrique LX, Rahman D, Vaillancourt H, Boissonneault P, Donovska T, Morita PP. Overview of policies, guidelines, and standards for active assisted living data exchange: thematic analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 Jun 22;8(6):e15923 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/15923] [Medline: 32568090] 25. Hecht A, Ma S, Porszasz J, Casaburi R, COPD Clinical Research Network. Methodology for using long-term accelerometry monitoring to describe daily activity patterns in COPD. COPD 2009 Apr;6(2):121-129 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1080/15412550902755044] [Medline: 19378225] 26. Van Hamme T, Garofalo G, Argones Rúa E, Preuveneers D, Joosen W. A systematic comparison of age and gender prediction on IMU sensor-based gait traces. Sensors (Basel) 2019 Jul 04;19(13):2945 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.3390/s19132945] [Medline: 31277389] 27. Zwijsen SA, Niemeijer AR, Hertogh CM. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging Ment Health 2011 May;15(4):419-427. [doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.543662] [Medline: 21500008] 28. Marschollek M, Becker M, Bauer JM, Bente P, Dasenbrock L, Elbers K, et al. Multimodal activity monitoring for home rehabilitation of geriatric fracture patients--feasibility and acceptance of sensor systems in the GAL-NATARS study. Inform Health Soc Care 2014 Aug 22;39(3-4):262-271. [doi: 10.3109/17538157.2014.931852] [Medline: 25148561] 29. DeGrazia D, Millum J. A Theory of Bioethics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2021. 30. Rubeis G, Schochow M, Steger F. Patient autonomy and quality of care in telehealthcare. Sci Eng Ethics 2018 Feb;24(1):93-107. [doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9885-3] [Medline: 28281148] 31. Chiauzzi E, Rodarte C, DasMahapatra P. Patient-centered activity monitoring in the self-management of chronic health conditions. BMC Med 2015 Apr 09;13:77 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0319-2] [Medline: 25889598] 32. Neuhauser L, Kreps GL, Morrison K, Athanasoulis M, Kirienko N, Van Brunt D. Using design science and artificial intelligence to improve health communication: chronologyMD case example. Patient Educ Couns 2013 Aug;92(2):211-217. [doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.006] [Medline: 23726219] 33. Essén A. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: an exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Soc Sci Med 2008 Jul;67(1):128-136. [doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.005] [Medline: 18396367] 34. Kang HG, Mahoney DF, Hoenig H, Hirth VA, Bonato P, Hajjar I, Center for Integration of MedicineInnovative Technology Working Group on Advanced Approaches to Physiologic Monitoring for the Aged. In situ monitoring of health in older adults: technologies and issues. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010 Aug;58(8):1579-1586. [doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02959.x] [Medline: 20646105] 35. Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics 2019 Dec 19;20(1):98 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z] [Medline: 31856798] 36. Sävenstedt S, Sandman PO, Zingmark K. The duality in using information and communication technology in elder care. J Adv Nurs 2006 Oct;56(1):17-25. [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03975.x] [Medline: 16972914] 37. Baker R. Gait analysis methods in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2006 Mar 02;3:4 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-3-4] [Medline: 16512912] JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 10https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX 38. Chen D, Cai Y, Qian X, Ansari R, Xu W, Chu K, et al. Bring gait lab to everyday life: gait analysis in terms of activities of daily living. IEEE Internet Things J 2020 Feb;7(2):1298-1312. [doi: 10.1109/jiot.2019.2954387] 39. Becker C, Schwickert L, Mellone S, Bagalà F, Chiari L, Helbostad JL, FARSEEING Consortium, FARSEEING Meta Database Consensus Group. Proposal for a multiphase fall model based on real-world fall recordings with body-fixed sensors. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2012 Dec;45(8):707-715. [doi: 10.1007/s00391-012-0403-6] [Medline: 23184296] 40. Pol M, van Nes F, van Hartingsveldt M, Buurman B, de Rooij S, Kröse B. Older people's perspectives regarding the use of sensor monitoring in their home. Gerontologist 2016 Jun;56(3):485-493. [doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu104] [Medline: 25384761] 41. Demiris G, Hensel BK, Skubic M, Rantz M. Senior residents' perceived need of and preferences for "smart home" sensor technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24(1):120-124. [doi: 10.1017/S0266462307080154] [Medline: 18218177] 42. Coventry L, Branley D. Cybersecurity in healthcare: a narrative review of trends, threats and ways forward. Maturitas 2018 Jul;113:48-52. [doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.008] [Medline: 29903648] 43. Wild K, Sharma N, Mattek N, Karlawish J, Riley T, Kaye J. Application of in-home monitoring data to transition decisions in continuing care retirement communities: usability study. J Med Internet Res 2021 Jan 13;23(1):e18806 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/18806] [Medline: 33439144] 44. Gabriels K, Moerenhout T. Exploring entertainment medicine and professionalization of self-care: interview study among doctors on the potential effects of digital self-tracking. J Med Internet Res 2018 Jan 12;20(1):e10 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.8040] [Medline: 29330140] 45. Steele R, Lo A, Secombe C, Wong YK. Elderly persons' perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int J Med Inform 2009 Dec;78(12):788-801. [doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.08.001] [Medline: 19717335] 46. Coughlin J, D'Ambrosio L, Reimer B, Pratt M. Proceedings of the 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2007 Presented at: 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; Aug 22-26, 2007; Lyon, France. [doi: 10.1109/iembs.2007.4352665] 47. Bakken S, Reame N. The promise and potential perils of big data for advancing symptom management research in populations at risk for health disparities. Annu Rev Nurs Res 2016;34:247-260. [doi: 10.1891/0739-6686.34.247] [Medline: 26673385] 48. Courtney KL, Demiris G, Rantz M, Skubic M. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Inform Prim Care 2008;16(3):195-201 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.14236/jhi.v16i3.694] [Medline: 19094406] 49. Habibipour A, Padyab A, Ståhlbröst A. Social, ethical and ecological issues in wearable technologies. In: Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems. 2019 Presented at: AMCIS 2019 Proceedings, Association for Information Systems; Aug 15-17, 2019; Cancún, Mexico. 50. Yang K, Isaia B, Brown LJ, Beeby S. E-textiles for healthy ageing. Sensors (Basel) 2019 Oct 15;19(20):4463 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.3390/s19204463] [Medline: 31618875] 51. Der Einfluss Künstlicher Intelligenz auf Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität. D64 Zentrum für Digitalen Fortschritt. URL: https://d-64.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/D64-Grundwerte-KI.pdf [accessed 2020-11-20] 52. Allen A. Privacy and medicine. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ privacy-medicine/ [accessed 2021-02-12] 53. Townsend D, Knoefel F, Goubran R. Privacy versus autonomy: a tradeoff model for smart home monitoring technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2011 Presented at: 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; Aug 30Sep 3, 2011; Boston, MA, USA. [doi: 10.1109/iembs.2011.6091176] 54. Azodo I, Williams R, Sheikh A, Cresswell K. Opportunities and challenges surrounding the use of data from wearable sensor devices in health care: qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res 2020 Oct 22;22(10):e19542 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/19542] [Medline: 33090107] 55. Grates MG, Heming A, Vukoman M, Schabsky P, Sorgalla J. New perspectives on user participation in technology design processes: an interdisciplinary approach. Gerontologist 2019 Jan 09;59(1):45-57. [doi: 10.1093/geront/gny112] [Medline: 30260407] 56. Fang ML, Canham SL, Battersby L, Sixsmith J, Wada M, Sixsmith A. Exploring privilege in the digital divide: implications for theory, policy, and practice. Gerontologist 2019 Jan 09;59(1):e1-15. [doi: 10.1093/geront/gny037] [Medline: 29750241] 57. Chesser A, Burke A, Reyes J, Rohrberg T. Navigating the digital divide: a systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Inform Health Soc Care 2016;41(1):1-19. [doi: 10.3109/17538157.2014.948171] [Medline: 25710808] 58. Oh SS, Kim K, Kim M, Oh J, Chu SH, Choi J. Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021 Feb 3;23(2):e26145. [doi: 10.2196/26145] 59. Peel NM, Paul SK, Cameron ID, Crotty M, Kurrle SE, Gray LC. Promoting activity in geriatric rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial of accelerometry. PLoS One 2016 Aug 26;11(8):e0160906 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160906] [Medline: 27564857] JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 11https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX 60. Landau R, Auslander GK, Werner S, Shoval N, Heinik J. Families' and professional caregivers' views of using advanced technology to track people with dementia. Qual Health Res 2010 Mar;20(3):409-419. [doi: 10.1177/1049732309359171] [Medline: 20133506] 61. Ethics of wearable medical and fitness devices. Technical University Munich. URL: https://benediktsvogler.com/downloads/ Ethics%20of%20wearable%20medical%20and%20fitness%20devices.pdf [accessed 2020-11-21] 62. Lim SE, Dodds R, Bacon D, Sayer AA, Roberts HC. Physical activity among hospitalised older people: insights from upper and lower limb accelerometry. Aging Clin Exp Res 2018 Nov;30(11):1363-1369 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1007/s40520-018-0930-0] [Medline: 29542070] 63. von Storch K, Schlomann A, Rietz C, Polidori MC, Woopen C. [Wearables to support self-management of older adults with chronic diseases : a qualitative study from the perspectives of patients and physicians]. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2018 Nov;51(7):791-798. [doi: 10.1007/s00391-017-1323-2] [Medline: 28986628] 64. Van Velsen L, Wildevuur S, Flierman I, Van Schooten B, Tabak M, Hermens H. Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016 Jan 27;16:11 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0250-2] [Medline: 26818611] Edited by L Buis; submitted 14.08.21; peer-reviewed by P Bhadra, J Salisbury; comments to author 19.10.21; revised version received 27.11.21; accepted 22.02.22; published 23.06.22 Please cite as: Predel C, Timmermann C, Ursin F, Orzechowski M, Ropinski T, Steger F Conflicting Aims and Values in the Application of Smart Sensors in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Ethical Analysis JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022;10(6):e32910 URL: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 doi: 10.2196/32910 PMID: ©Christopher Predel, Cristian Timmermann, Frank Ursin, Marcin Orzechowski, Timo Ropinski, Florian Steger. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 23.06.2022. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 | vol. 10 | iss. 6 | e32910 | p. 12https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e32910 (page number not for citation purposes) Predel et alJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH XSL•FO RenderX