MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966560826 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/9/4/046004

Ambiguity domain-based identification of altered gait pattern in ALS disorder

2012· article· de· W1966560826 on OpenAlexaff
Lakshmi Sugavaneswaran, Karthikeyan Umapathy, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTRIDEGaitLinear discriminant analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisSwingAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePsychologyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of a neurological disorder, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is so subtle that the symptoms are often overlooked, thereby ruling out the option of early detection of the abnormality. In the case of ALS, over 75% of the affected individuals often experience awkwardness when using their limbs, which alters their gait, i.e. stride and swing intervals. The aim of this work is to suitably represent the non-stationary characteristics of gait (fluctuations in stride and swing intervals) in order to facilitate discrimination between normal and ALS subjects. We define a simple-yet-representative feature vector space by exploiting the ambiguity domain (AD) to achieve efficient classification between healthy and pathological gait stride interval. The stride-to-stride fluctuations and the swing intervals of 16 healthy control and 13 ALS-affected subjects were analyzed. Three features that are representative of the gait signal characteristics were extracted from the AD-space and are fed to linear discriminant analysis and neural network classifiers, respectively. Overall, maximum accuracies of 89.2% (LDA) and 100% (NN) were obtained in classifying the ALS gait.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207