MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969645531 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00357

Using a Smart Phone as a Standalone Platform for Detection and Monitoring of Pathological Tremors

2013· article· en· W1969645531 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Daneault, Benoit Carignan, Carl Éric Codère, Abbas F. Sadikot, Christian Duval

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart phonePhoneComputer scienceAccelerometerMobile phoneEmbedded systemHuman–computer interactionReal-time computingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Smart phones are becoming ubiquitous and their computing capabilities are ever increasing. Consequently, more attention is geared toward their potential use in research and medical settings. For instance, their built-in hardware can provide quantitative data for different movements. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to evaluate the capabilities of a standalone smart phone platform to characterize tremor. RESULTS: Algorithms for tremor recording and online analysis can be implemented within a smart phone. The smart phone provides reliable time- and frequency-domain tremor characteristics. The smart phone can also provide medically relevant tremor assessments. DISCUSSION: Smart phones have the potential to provide researchers and clinicians with quantitative short- and long-term tremor assessments that are currently not easily available. METHODS: A smart phone application for tremor quantification and online analysis was developed. Then, smart phone results were compared to those obtained simultaneously with a laboratory accelerometer. Finally, results from the smart phone were compared to clinical tremor assessments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207