An Analysis of the Accuracy of Wearable Sensors for Classifying the Causes of Falls in Humans
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
Falls are the number one cause of injury in older adults. Wearable sensors, typically consisting of accelerometers and/or gyroscopes, represent a promising technology for preventing and mitigating the effects of falls. At present, the goal of such "ambulatory fall monitors" is to detect the occurrence of a fall and alert care providers to this event. Future systems may also provide information on the causes and circumstances of falls, to aid clinical diagnosis and targeting of interventions. As a first step towards this goal, the objective of the current study was to develop and evaluate the accuracy of a wearable sensor system for determining the causes of falls. Sixteen young adults participated in experimental trials involving falls due to slips, trips, and "other" causes of imbalance. Three-dimensional acceleration data acquired during the falling trials were input to a linear discriminant analysis technique. This routine achieved 96% sensitivity and 98% specificity in distinguishing the causes of a falls using acceleration data from three markers (left ankle, right ankle, and sternum). In contrast, a single marker provided 54% sensitivity and two markers provided 89% sensitivity. These results indicate the utility of a three-node accelerometer array for distinguishing the cause of falls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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