Views of individuals with spinal cord injury on the use of wearable cameras to monitor upper limb function in the home and community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hand function impairment after cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) can significantly reduce independence. Unlike current hand function assessments, wearable camera systems could potentially measure functional hand usage at home, and thus benefit the development of neurorehabilitation strategies. The objective of this study was to understand the views of individuals with SCI on the use of wearable cameras to track neurorehabilitation progress and outcomes in the community. DESIGN: Questionnaires. SETTING: Home simulation laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen individuals with cervical SCI. OUTCOME MEASURES: After using wearable cameras in the simulated home environment, participants completed custom questionnaires, comprising open-ended and structured questions. RESULTS: Participants showed relatively low concerns related to data confidentiality when first-person videos are used by clinicians (1.93 ± 1.28 on a 5-point Likert scale) or researchers (2.00 ± 1.31). Storing only automatically extracted metrics reduced privacy concerns. Though participants reported moderate privacy concerns (2.53 ± 1.51) about wearing a camera in daily life due to certain sensitive situations (e.g. washrooms), they felt that information about their hand usage at home is useful for researchers (4.73 ± 0.59), clinicians (4.47 ± 0.83), and themselves (4.40 ± 0.83). Participants found the system moderately comfortable (3.27 ± 1.44), but expressed low desire to use it frequently (2.87 ± 1.36). CONCLUSION: Despite some privacy and comfort concerns, participants believed that the information obtained would be useful. With appropriate strategies to minimize the data stored and recording duration, wearable cameras can be a well-accepted tool to track function in the home and community after SCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".