Convergent Validity of a Wearable Sensor System for Measuring Sub-Task Performance during the Timed Up-and-Go Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timed-up-and-go test (TUG) is one of the most commonly used tests of physical function in clinical practice and for research outcomes. Inertial sensors have been used to parse the TUG test into its composite phases (rising, walking, turning, etc.), but have not validated this approach against an optoelectronic gold-standard, and to our knowledge no studies have published the minimal detectable change of these measurements. METHODS: Eleven adults performed the TUG three times each under normal and slow walking conditions, and 3 m and 5 m walking distances, in a 12-camera motion analysis laboratory. An inertial measurement unit (IMU) with tri-axial accelerometers and gyroscopes was worn on the upper-torso. Motion analysis marker data and IMU signals were analyzed separately to identify the six main TUG phases: sit-to-stand, 1st walk, 1st turn, 2nd walk, 2nd turn, and stand-to-sit, and the absolute agreement between two systems analyzed using intra-class correlation (ICC, model 2) analysis. The minimal detectable change (MDC) within subjects was also calculated for each TUG phase. RESULTS: The overall difference between TUG sub-tasks determined using 3D motion capture data and the IMU sensor data was <0.5 s. For all TUG distances and speeds, the absolute agreement was high for total TUG time and walk times (ICC > 0.90), but less for chair activity (ICC range 0.5-0.9) and typically poor for the turn time (ICC < 0.4). MDC values for total TUG time ranged between 2-4 s or 12-22% of the TUG time measurement. MDC of the sub-task times were higher proportionally, being 20-60% of the sub-task duration. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a commercial IMU can be used for quantifying the TUG phases with accuracy sufficient for clinical applications; however, the MDC when using inertial sensors is not necessarily improved over less sophisticated measurement tools.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".