MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017465745 · doi:10.3390/s120303512

Inertial Sensing to Determine Movement Disorder Motion Present before and after Treatment

2012· article· en· W2017465745 on OpenAlexafffund
Wesley J. E. Teskey, Mohamed Elhabiby, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsInertial frame of referenceMotion (physics)Movement (music)Inertial measurement unitMotion sensorsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAcousticsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a lot of interest in recent years in using inertial sensors (accelerometers and gyroscopes) to monitor movement disorder motion and monitor the efficacy of treatment options. Two of the most prominent movement disorders, which are under evaluation in this research paper, are essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD). These movement disorders are first evaluated to show that ET and PD motion often depict more (tremor) motion content in the 3-12 Hz frequency band of interest than control data and that such tremor motion can be characterized using inertial sensors. As well, coherence analysis is used to compare between pairs of many of the six degrees-of-freedom of motions under evaluation, to determine the similarity in tremor motion for the various degrees-of-freedom at different frequency bands of interest. It was quite surprising that this coherence analysis depicts that there is a statistically significant relationship using coherence analysis when differentiating between control and effectively medicated PD motion. The statistical analysis uncovers the novel finding that PD medication induced dyskinesia is depicted within coherence data from inertial signals. Dyskinesia is involuntary motion or the absence of intended motion, and it is a common side effect among medicated PD patients. The results show that inertial sensors can be used to differentiate between effectively medicated PD motion and control motion; such a differentiation can often be difficult to perform with the human eye because effectively medicated PD patients tend to not produce much tremor. As well, the finding that PD motion, when well medicated, does still differ significantly from control motion allows for researchers to quantify potential deficiencies in the use of medication. By using inertial sensors to spot such deficiencies, as outlined in this research paper, it is hoped that medications with even a larger degree of efficacy can be created in the future.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207