Validation of the Hexoskin wearable vest during lying, sitting, standing, and walking activities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the validity of the Hexoskin wearable vest to monitor heart rate (HR), breathing rate (BR), tidal volume (VT), minute ventilation, and hip motion intensity (HMI) in comparison with laboratory standard devices during lying, sitting, standing, and walking. Twenty healthy young volunteers participated in this study. First, participants walked 6 min on a treadmill at speeds of 1, 3, and 4.5 km/h followed by increasing treadmill grades until 80% of their predicted maximal heart rate. Second, lying, sitting, and standing tasks were performed (5 min each) followed by 6 min of treadmill walking at 80% of their ventilatory threshold. Analysis of each individual's mean values under each resting or exercise condition by the 2 measurement systems revealed low coefficient of variation and high intraclass correlation values for HR, BR, and HMI. The Bland-Altman results from HR, BR, and HMI indicated no deviation of the mean value from zero and relatively small variability about the mean. VT and minute ventilation were provided in arbitrary units by the Hexoskin device; however, relative magnitude of change from Hexoskin closely tracked the laboratory standard method. Hexoskin presented low variability, good agreement, and consistency. The Hexoskin wearable vest was a valid and consistent tool to monitor activities typical of daily living such as different body positions (lying, sitting, and standing) and various walking speeds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it