Conception, fabrication et caractérisation de transistors à effet de champ haute tension en carbure de silicium et de leur diode associée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable sensors can provide quantitative, gait-based assessments that can translate to point-of-care environments. This investigation generated elderly fall-risk predictive models based on wearable-sensor-derived gait data and prospective fall occurrence, and identified the optimal sensor type, location, and combination for single and dual-task walking. 75 individuals who reported six month prospective fall occurrence (75.2 ± 6.6 years; 47 non-fallers and 28 fallers) walked 7.62 m under single-task and dual-task conditions while wearing pressure-sensinginsoles and tri-axial accelerometers at the head, pelvis, and left and right shanks. Fall-risk classificationmodels were assessed for all sensor combinations and three model types: neural network, naïve Bayesian, and support vector machine. The best performing model used a neural network, dual-task gait data, and input parameters from head, pelvis, and left shank accelerometers (accuracy = 57%, sensitivity = 43%, and specificity = 65%). The best single-sensor model used a neural network, dual-task gait data, and pelvis accelerometer parameters (accuracy = 54%, sensitivity = 35%, and specificity = 67%). Single-task and dual-task gait assessments provided similar fall-risk model performance. Fall-risk predictive models developed for point-of-care environments should use multi-sensor dual-task gait assessment with the pelvis location considered if assessment is limited to a single sensor.
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 | 0.001 | 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".