MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2108125015 · doi:10.1109/icorr.2011.5975418

A decision-theoretic approach in the design of an adaptive upper-limb stroke rehabilitation robot

2011· article· en· W2108125015 on OpenAlexaff
Rajibul Huq, Peter Kán, Robby Goetschalckx, Diane Hébert, Jesse Hoey, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processTask (project management)RehabilitationComputer scienceRobotStroke (engine)Process (computing)Markov decision processHuman–computer interactionRehabilitation roboticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMarkov processDecision processSimulationMachine learningMarkov chainMarkov modelEngineeringPhysical therapyMedicineMathematicsProcess managementSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an automated system for a rehabilitation robotic device that guides stroke patients through an upper-limb reaching task. The system uses a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) as its primary engine for decision-making. The POMDP allows the system to automatically modify exercise parameters to account for the specific needs and abilities of different individuals, and to use these parameters to take appropriate decisions about stroke rehabilitation exercises. The performance of the system was evaluated through various simulations and by comparing the decisions made by the system with those of a human therapist for a single patient. In general, the simulations showed promising results and the therapist thought the system decisions were believable.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→