MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160709886 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5334584

Analysis of commode grab bar usage for the monitoring of older adults in the smart home environment

2009· article· en· W2160709886 on OpenAlexafffund
Amaya Arcelus, M. Holtzman, Rafik Goubran, Heidi Sveistrup, Paulette Guitard, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsToiletBathtubHome automationComputer scienceBalance (ability)SimulationEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of falls inside the home is a common yet potentially hazardous issue for adults as they age. Even with the installation of physical aids such as grab bars, weight transfers on and off a toilet or bathtub can become increasingly difficult as a person's level of physical mobility and sense of balance deteriorate. Detecting this deterioration becomes an important goal in fall prevention within a smart home. This paper develops an unobtrusive method of analyzing the usage of toilet grab bars using pressure sensors embedded into the arm rests of a commode. Clinical parameters are successfully extracted automatically from a series of stand-to-sit (StSi) and sit-to-stand (SiSt) transfers performed by a trial group of young and older adults. A preliminary comparison of the parameters indicates differences between the two groups, and aligns well with published characteristics obtained using accelerometers worn on the body. The unobtrusive nature of this method provides a useful tool to be incorporated into a system of continuous monitoring of older adults within the smart home environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207