MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514924411 · doi:10.1109/ihtc.2014.7147537

Affordable erehabilitation monitoring platform

2014· article· en· W1514924411 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Janidarmian, Atena Roshan Fekr, Katarzyna Radecka, Željko Žilić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerComputer scienceGyroscopeWearable computerDynamic time warpingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionRehabilitationWearable technologyReal-time computingHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionEmbedded systemSimulationEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who have suffered a motor function disability need to practice appropriate rehabilitation treatments. Motion sensors such as accelerometer and gyroscope in fact are increasingly being embedded in wearable computing devices and can provide a quantitative measure of the human movement for assessment. In this paper, we present a low-cost eRehabilitation platform employing efficient algorithms to provide high accuracy feedback. The provided online rehabilitation service is removing the traditional face-to-face services by using cutting-edge mobile and sensors technologies. It allows doctors to give the patients qualitative feedback and track their progress over time. This system considers the variability in movement speed and accurate angle measurements. To this end, the golden standard pattern collected under physiotherapist supervision is compared with the patient's exercises based on Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm. The experiments were conducted in a laboratory with different subjects, and results confirm that low-cost MEMS technology achieves an acceptable accuracy level in real-time rehabilitation monitoring. We also address different encountered issues and discuss how to efficiently tackle with them.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207