MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570851373 · doi:10.1089/g4h.2015.0002

Validity of an Interactive Functional Reach Test

2015· article· en· W1570851373 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGames for Health Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMicrosoft ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsConcurrent validityIntraclass correlationBalance (ability)RehabilitationTest (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationTimed Up and Go testPhysical therapyOutpatient clinicBerg Balance ScaleComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyPsychometricsNursingPatient satisfactionDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Videogaming platforms such as the Microsoft (Redmond, WA) Kinect(®) are increasingly being used in rehabilitation to improve balance performance and mobility. These gaming platforms do not have built-in clinical measures that offer clinically meaningful data. We have now developed software that will enable the Kinect sensor to assess a patient's balance using an interactive functional reach test (I-FRT). The aim of the study was to test the concurrent validity of the I-FRT and to establish the feasibility of implementing the I-FRT in a clinical setting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The concurrent validity of the I-FRT was tested among 20 healthy adults (mean age, 25.8±3.4 years; 14 women). The Functional Reach Test (FRT) was measured simultaneously by both the Kinect sensor using the I-FRT software and the Optotrak Certus(®) 3D motion-capture system (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, ON, Canada). The feasibility of implementing the I-FRT in a clinical setting was assessed by performing the I-FRT in 10 participants with mild balance impairments recruited from the outpatient physical therapy clinic (mean age, 55.8±13.5 years; four women) and obtaining their feedback using a NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire. RESULTS: There was moderate to good agreement between FRT measures made by the two measurement systems. The greatest agreement between the two measurement system was found with the Kinect sensor placed at a distance of 2.5 m [intraclass correlation coefficient (2,k)=0.786; P<0.001] from the participant. Participants with mild balance impairments whose balance was assessed using the I-FRT software scored their experience favorably by assigning lower scores for the Frustration, Mental Demand, and Temporal Demand subscales on the NASA/TLX questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: FRT measures made using the Kinect sensor I-FRT software provides a valid clinical measure that can be used with the gaming platforms.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.325 · 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