MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895837758 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2033

TD‐P‐017: LONGITUDINAL, VISION‐BASED MONITORING OF CHANGES OF GAIT IN DEMENTIA: A PILOT STUDY

2018· article· en· W2895837758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elham Dolatabadi, Derek Zhi, Andrea Iaboni, Babak Taati

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDementiaSTRIDERehabilitationLongitudinal studyMedicineGait analysisPhysical therapyPsychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impairments of gait and balance often progress through the course of dementia, and are associated with increased risk of falls. Regular assessment of gait and balance could therefore be informative in tracking changes in functional status, and identifying individuals at a high risk of falling to allow for preventative measures. We have developed a technology, called AMBIENT, which enables the frequent, accurate, unobtrusive, and cost-effective measurement of gait and balance parameters. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of using AMBIENT for frequent assessment of mobility in people with dementia in a residential facility. We conducted a pilot longitudinal study with 20 participants (age: 76.9 ± 6.7 years, female: 50%) in the geriatric psychiatry unit at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, an eighteen-bed inpatient dementia care unit for older adults with behavioral symptoms. The AMBIENT setup included radio frequency identification to identify study participants and a Microsoft Kinect sensor to track body posture. The system automatically monitored participants’ gait as they walked within the view of the sensor during their daily routine and computed the spatiotemporal parameters of gait. Demographic and baseline descriptive measures were collected and falls events tracked. On average, 97 walking sequences per person were collected over a length of stay of 46 ± 37 days. There were 14 falls among study participants: 12 participants did not fall during their length of stay, 4 fell once, 2 fell twice, and 2 fell 3 times. Quantitative measures of gait were stride length (0.8 ± 0.1 m), stride time (1.4 ± 0.2 s), cadence (89.3 ± 18.1 steps/min), velocity (0.6 ± 0.1 m/s), step length asymmetry (1.2 ± 0.6), and step time asymmetry (1.2 ± 0.5).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207