The reliability and accuracy of an electromagnetic motion analysis system when used conjointly with an accelerometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of an accelerometer driven electronic postural monitor (Spineangel®) placed within the electromagnetic measurement field of the Polhemus Fastrak™ is unknown. This study assessed the reliability and accuracy of Fastrak™ linear and angular measurements, when the Spineangel® was placed close to the sensor(s) and transmitter. Bland Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) were used to determine protocol reproducibility and measurement consistency. Excellent reliability was found for linear and angular measurements (0.96, 95% CI: 0.90-0.99; and 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, respectively) with the inclusion of Spineangel®; similar results were found, without the inclusion of Spineangel®, for linear and angular measurements, (0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99; and 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, respectively). The greatest linear discrepancies between the two test conditions were found to be less than 3.5 mm, while the greatest angular discrepancies were below 3.5°. As the effect on accuracy was minimal, these findings support the conjoint use of the Fastrak™ during validation studies of the Spineangel® device. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: Although previous studies have used the Fastrak™ as the gold standard measurement system, the influence of an accelerometer driven postural monitor on accuracy has not been reported. The strength of the present study has been to determine the effect of accelerometer placement within the electromagnetic field on the reliability and accuracy of the Fastrak™.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".