MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139254098 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4353306

Monitoring Mobility Assistive Device Use in Post-Stroke Patients

2007· article· en· W2139254098 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Boissy, Todd Hester, D.M. Sherrill, Hélène Corriveau, Paolo Bonato

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceStroke (engine)Independence (probability theory)Activities of daily livingAssistive technologyHuman–computer interactionMedicinePhysical therapyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobility assistive devices (MAD) such as canes can improve mobility and allow independence in the performance of mobility-related tasks. The use of MAD is often prescribed for stroke survivors. Despite their acknowledged qualities, MAD in real life conditions are typically underutilized, misused and abandoned. Ecologically sound, evidence based outcome measures need to be developed so as to capture the inherent complexities behind real life use of MAD and identify markers and mitigators of a successful integration of MAD into the daily activities of stroke survivors. In this study, we used accelerometers, gyroscopes, and a load cell to identify the task a patient was performing and examine the use of the cane in the context of the task.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207