MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587513897 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2017.2665519

Design and Validation of a Biofeedback Device to Improve Heel-to-Toe Gait in Seniors

2017· article· en· W2587513897 on OpenAlexafffund
Abhishek Vadnerkar, Sabrina Figueiredo, Nancy E. Mayo, Robert E. Kearney

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeelGaitBiofeedbackComputer scienceInertial measurement unitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisKinematicsExoskeletonSimulationArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feature of healthy human walking gait is a clearly defined heel-strike at initial contact, known as heel-to-toe gait. However, a common consequence of ageing is the deterioration of this heel first gait toward a flat foot, or "shuffling" gait. This leads to a shortened stride length, slowed gait speed, and an increased fall risk. Shuffling gait is normally treated by physiotherapy, however, therapist time is limited and training is restricted to a clinical environment. Gait rehabilitation could be expedited with the use of a device that distinguishes between heel-to-toe and shuffling gait and gives feedback to the user. This paper describes the design and validation of a device to achieve this. The device is innovative in that it both analyses the kinematics of the foot in real time and uses this information to classify the step quality in a manner that agrees with the subjective judgement of a physiotherapist. The device comprises a sensing module and a biofeedback module. The sensing module is a six axis inertial measurement unit that is strapped to the patient's foot. Raw data are streamed wirelessly to the biofeedback module (a smartphone), which runs an algorithm to detect step quality on the basis of angular velocity of the foot, and gives binary feedback to the user. Results from a validation study on the target population demonstrate very good classification performance, with an accuracy of 84.1% when compared with physiotherapist labels. The sensitivity is 92.4% at an operating point of 75% specificity, and the area under the ROC curve is 0.937. This performance should be more than adequate for clinical use and opens the door for investigations to determine how it can be used most effectively.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207