Autonomous Quality Control of Joint Orientation Measured with Inertial Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical mobility assessment is traditionally performed in laboratories using complex and expensive equipment. The low accessibility to such equipment, combined with the emerging trend to assess mobility in a free-living environment, creates a need for body-worn sensors (e.g., inertial measurement units-IMUs) that are capable of measuring the complexity in motor performance using meaningful measurements, such as joint orientation. However, accuracy of joint orientation estimates using IMUs may be affected by environment, the joint tracked, type of motion performed and velocity. This study investigates a quality control (QC) process to assess the quality of orientation data based on features extracted from the raw inertial sensors' signals. Joint orientation (trunk, hip, knee, ankle) of twenty participants was acquired by an optical motion capture system and IMUs during a variety of tasks (sit, sit-to-stand transition, walking, turning) performed under varying conditions (speed, environment). An artificial neural network was used to classify good and bad sequences of joint orientation with a sensitivity and a specificity above 83%. This study confirms the possibility to perform QC on IMU joint orientation data based on raw signal features. This innovative QC approach may be of particular interest in a big data context, such as for remote-monitoring of patients' mobility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".