Influence of upper limb movement patterns on accelerometer measurements: a pediatric case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies showed success using wrist-worn accelerometers to monitor upper-limb activity in adults and children with hemiparesis. However, a knowledge gap exists regarding which specific joint movements are reflected in accelerometry readings. We conducted a case series intended to enrich data interpretation by characterizing the influence of different pediatric upper-limb movements on accelerometry data. APPROACH: The study recruited six typically developing children and five children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy. The participants performed unilateral and bilateral activities, and their upper limb movements were measured with wrist-worn accelerometers and the Microsoft Kinect, a markerless motion-capture system that tracks skeletal data. The Kinect data were used to quantify specific upper limb movements through joint angle calculations (trunk, shoulder, elbow and wrist). Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to quantify the influence of individual joint movements on accelerometry data. Regression analyses were performed to examine multi-joint patterns and explain variability across different activities and participants. MAIN RESULTS: Single-joint correlation results suggest that pediatric wrist-worn accelerometry data are not biased to particular individual joint movements. Rather, the accelerometry data could best be explained by the movements of the joints with the most functional relevance to the performed activity. SIGNIFICANCE: This case series provides deeper insight into the interpretation of wrist-worn accelerometry data, and supports the use of this tool in quantifying functional upper-limb movements in pediatric populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".