MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742051770 · doi:10.3390/app7080771

A Biomechanical Study for Developing Wearable-Sensor System to Prevent Hip Fractures among Seniors

2017· article· en· W2742051770 on OpenAlexafffund
Gongbing Shan, Xiang Zhang, Brandie Wilde

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShanxi Scholarship Council of China
KeywordsWearable computerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineBalance (ability)Physical therapyComputer scienceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the population ages, falls are becoming a major health problem, not only for those with some degree of balance or mobility impairment, but also among healthy active seniors. Previous studies suggest that the degradation of human sensorimotor function related to age contributes to falls. Hip bones are among the most frequently fractured body parts resulting from falls. Hip fractures are a frequent cause of early death, functional dependence, and high medical care costs. The current prevention method is to use hip protectors. Unfortunately, it often fails to do so because the pocket containing the pad can move away from the area during falls. Additionally, some seniors refuse to use hip protectors because they find them constraining. Hence, a new protector that is only activated during a fall is much desired. The current study explored the possibility via biomechanical analyses for building a wearable sensor system that triggers a mini-airbag system during a fall, i.e., the air-pad is only present for protection when a fall occurs. The results have revealed that two sensors placed on the left and right shoulder would be best for a detection of any-direction fall and could be applied for building a wearable sensor system for prevention of hip fractures resulting from falls.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207