Semantic Web technologies in sensor-based personal health monitoring systems: A systematic mapping study

Submitted by Mbithe Nzomo on 09/19/2025 - 09:53

Tracking #: 3947-5161

Authors: 
Mbithe Nzomo
Deshendran Moodley

Responsible editor: 
Eva Blomqvist

Submission type: 
Survey Article
Abstract: 
In recent years, there has been an increased focus on early detection, prevention, and prediction of diseases. This, together with advances in sensor technology and the Internet of Things, has led to accelerated efforts in the development of personal health monitoring systems. This study analyses the state of the art in the use of Semantic Web technologies in sensor-based personal health monitoring systems. Using a systematic approach, a total of 48 systems are selected as representative of the current state of the art. We critically analyse the extent to which the selected systems address seven key challenges: interoperability, situation detection, situation prediction, decision support, context awareness, explainability, and uncertainty handling. We discuss the role and limitations of Semantic Web technologies in managing each challenge. We then conduct a quality assessment of the selected systems based on the data and devices used, system and components development, rigour of evaluation, and accessibility of research outputs. Finally, we propose a reference architecture to provide guidance for the design and development of new systems. This study provides a comprehensive mapping of the field, identifies inadequacies in the state of the art, and provides recommendations for future research.
Full PDF Version: 
PDF icon swj3947.pdf
Previous Version: 
Semantic Web technologies in sensor-based personal health monitoring systems: A systematic mapping study
Tags: 
Reviewed
Long-term Stable Link to Resources: 
https://github.com/mbithenzomo/semantic_phms_mapping_study

Decision/Status: 
Accept

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
Anonymous submitted on 24/Nov/2025
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

All the requested revisions have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors. The manuscript has been significantly improved in clarity, structure and completeness. The paper is now ready for publication.

Review #2
By Evan W. Patton submitted on 02/Dec/2025
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

After having reviewed the amended manuscript, I believe that the bulk of the comments from my previous review have been sufficiently addressed by the authors. As previously stated, the manuscript covers substantial ground on the topic of semantic web technologies for personal sensor-based monitoring. The manuscript suitably targets the audience of the Semantic Web Journal. The authors were structured in their approach, and while I have a few reservations (see my detailed notes below), I believe they were thorough in their survey and that the community benefits from a thorough review of the application of semantic technologies to personal health applications. I also appreciate that despite the long time frame of journal reviews the authors took the initiative to expand the article with very recently published papers and they should be commended for that. As previously noted, the linked GitHub repository contains copies of the final selection of papers as listed in Table 5.

Minor issues:

§5.2.2: This may just be a stylistic item but in the opening sentence of this section the number 39 should be written out in words, i.e., Thirty-nine.
§5.4.4: Combine the references 13, 154 in the third sentence.
§5.5.2: Combine references in the second sentence of the first paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph are the items listed in duration discussion meant to be ordered in a particular way? If not, might I suggest alphabetical order, i.e., disease, physical activity, sleep, symptoms, and treatment.
§5.9: *High* scores seem like they should be *70% or more* of the aspects, given how Medium score is up to 69%.
§6.1: Another stylistic item where the paragraph starts with 10 but might be better written as Ten. Similarly, 18 in the following page.
I also struggled a bit to really understand the value of the radar charts presented. Is the intention that these charts are an amalgamation of the 48 papers? Would a stacked bar chart be easier to read given the amount of overlap? I guess I do not quite understand what they are trying to convey so an update to the captions may be helpful to the reader.