User-Based Motion Sensing and Fuzzy Logic for Automated Fall Detection in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than one third of community-dwelling older adults and up to 60% of nursing home residents fall each year, with 10-15% of fallers sustaining a serious injury. Reliable automated fall detection can increase confidence in people with fear of falling, promote active safe living for older adults, and reduce complications from falls. The performance of a 2-stage fall detection algorithm using impact magnitudes and changes in trunk angles derived from user-based motion sensors was evaluated under laboratory conditions. Ten healthy participants were instrumented on the front and side of the trunk with 3D accelerometers. Participants simulated 9 fall conditions and 6 common activities of daily living. Fall conditions were simulated on a protective mattress. The experimental data set comprised 750 events (45 fall events and 30 nonfall events per participant) that were classified by the fall detection algorithm as either a fall or a nonfall using inputs from 3D accelerometers. Significant differences for impacts recorded, trunk angle changes (p<0.01), and detection performances (p<0.05) were found between fall and nonfall conditions. The proposed algorithm detected fall events during simulated fall conditions with a success rate of 93% and a false-positive rate of 29% during nonfall conditions. Despite a slightly superior identification performance for the accelerometer located on the front of the trunk, no significant differences were found between the two motion sensor locations. Automated detection of fall events based on user-based motion sensing and fuzzy logic shows promising results. Additional rules and optimization of the algorithm will be needed to decrease the false-positive rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".