MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885685532 · doi:10.3390/e20080579

Sample Entropy of Human Gait Center of Pressure Displacement: A Systematic Methodological Analysis

2018· article· en· W2885685532 on OpenAlexafffund
Samira Ahmadi, Nariman Sepehri, Christine Wu, Tony Szturm

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSample entropyCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Entropy (arrow of time)Statistical physicsGait analysisMathematicsGaitComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysicsMechanicsMedicineThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sample entropy (SampEn) has been used to quantify the regularity or predictability of human gait signals. There are studies on the appropriate use of this measure for inter-stride spatio-temporal gait variables. However, the sensitivity of this measure to preprocessing of the signal and to variant values of template size (m), tolerance size (r), and sampling rate has not been studied when applied to “whole” gait signals. Whole gait signals are the entire time series data obtained from force or inertial sensors. This study systematically investigates the sensitivity of SampEn of the center of pressure displacement in the mediolateral direction (ML COP-D) to variant parameter values and two pre-processing methods. These two methods are filtering the high-frequency components and resampling the signals to have the same average number of data points per stride. The discriminatory ability of SampEn is studied by comparing treadmill walk only (WO) to dual-task (DT) condition. The results suggest that SampEn maintains the directional difference between two walking conditions across variant parameter values, showing a significant increase from WO to DT condition, especially when signals are low-pass filtered. Moreover, when gait speed is different between test conditions, signals should be low-pass filtered and resampled to have the same average number of data points per stride.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations63
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207