MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032405706 · doi:10.1115/1.4003809

A Low Power Wireless Data Acquisition Device to Monitor Gait Patterns for Children With Toe Walking During Daily Activities

2011· article· en· W2032405706 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond Lou, Emma Brunton, Fraaz Kamal, Andreas Renggli, Kyle Kemp, Justin Lewicke, Sukhdeep Dulai, Joe Watt, John Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisPower walkingMedicinePhysical therapyPopulationPreferred walking speed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical gait analysis is the accepted “gold standard” for evaluating an individual’s walking pattern. However, in certain conditions such as idiopathic toe walking (ITW), the degree of voluntary control that a subject may elicit upon their walking pattern in a gait laboratory may not truly reflect their gait during daily activities. Therefore, a battery-powered, wireless data acquisition system was developed to record daily walking patterns to assist in the assessment of treatment outcomes in this patient population. The device was developed to be small (30×50×12 mm3), light-weight (15 g), easy to install, reliable, and consumed little power. It could be mounted across the laces of the shoe, while forces and walking activities were recorded to investigate the percentage of toe walking during the assessment. Laboratory tests were performed and preliminary clinical trials at a gait laboratory were done on six normal gait walkers. These volunteers also try to walk on their toes to simulate the toe walking at the gait laboratory. The system was able to track the gait pattern and determine the percentage of toe walking relative to normal gait. Three boys and one girl were diagnosed with ITW then participated into this study. A total of 4 sets thirty-three 10 min data sessions (5.5 h) were collected outside the laboratory. The results showed that the test subjects walked on their toes 70±4% of the total walking time, which was higher than that they performed 64±5% at the gait laboratory. This preliminary study shows promising results that the system should be able to use for clinical assessment and evaluation of children with ITW.

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)0.002
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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207