Inertial Sensing-Based Pre-Impact Detection of Falls Involving Near-Fall Scenarios
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
Although near-falls (or recoverable imbalances) are common episodes for many older adults, they have received a little attention and were not considered in the previous laboratory-based fall assessments. Hence, this paper addresses near-fall scenarios in addition to the typical falls and activities of daily living (ADLs). First, a novel vertical velocity-based pre-impact fall detection method using a wearable inertial sensor is proposed. Second, to investigate the effect of near-fall conditions on the detection performance and feasibility of the vertical velocity as a fall detection parameter, the detection performance of the proposed method (Method 1) is evaluated by comparing it to that of an acceleration-based method (Method 2) for the following two different discrimination cases: falls versus ADLs (i.e., excluding near-falls) and falls versus non-falls (i.e., including near-falls). Our experiment results show that both methods produce similar accuracies for the fall versus ADL detection case; however, Method 1 exhibits a much higher accuracy than Method 2 for the fall versus non-fall detection case. This result demonstrates the superiority of the vertical velocity over the peak acceleration as a fall detection parameter when the near-fall conditions are included in the non-fall category, in addition to its capability of detecting pre-impact 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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