Trunk Motion System (TMS) Using Printed Body Worn Sensor (BWS) via Data Fusion Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human movement analysis is an important part of biomechanics and rehabilitation, for which many measurement systems are introduced. Among these, wearable devices have substantial biomedical applications, primarily since they can be implemented both in indoor and outdoor applications. In this study, a Trunk Motion System (TMS) using printed Body-Worn Sensors (BWS) is designed and developed. TMS can measure three-dimensional (3D) trunk motions, is lightweight, and is a portable and non-invasive system. After the recognition of sensor locations, twelve BWSs were printed on stretchable clothing with the purpose of measuring the 3D trunk movements. To integrate BWSs data, a neural network data fusion algorithm was used. The outcome of this algorithm along with the actual 3D anatomical movements (obtained by Qualisys system) were used to calibrate the TMS. Three healthy participants with different physical characteristics participated in the calibration tests. Seven different tasks (each repeated three times) were performed, involving five planar, and two multiplanar movements. Results showed that the accuracy of TMS system was less than 1.0°, 0.8°, 0.6°, 0.8°, 0.9°, and 1.3° for flexion/extension, left/right lateral bending, left/right axial rotation, and multi-planar motions, respectively. In addition, the accuracy of TMS for the identified movement was less than 2.7°. TMS, developed to monitor and measure the trunk orientations, can have diverse applications in clinical, biomechanical, and ergonomic studies to prevent musculoskeletal injuries, and to determine the impact of interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".