MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897337048 · doi:10.1109/biorob.2018.8487197

Development of a Wearable Tremor Suppression Glove

2018· article· en· W2897337048 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Zhou, Mary E. Jenkins, Michael D. Naish, Ana Luisa Trejos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWearable computerWearable technologyComputer scienceMedicineSurgeryEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current treatments for parkinsonian tremor, such as medication and brain surgery, have shown varying levels of effectiveness and carry the risk of significant side effects and complications. Studies on wearable tremor suppression devices have shown positive results in the use of mechanical and electrical suppression on tremor management of the upper limbs. Wearable technology for tremor suppression is a promising solution for patients who do not respond to medication and do not present severe enough symptoms to undergo surgery. Available tremor suppression devices are mainly for elbow and wrist tremor. Devices for finger tremor suppression have not been developed despite the fact that finger tremor is also present. In this study, a wearable tremor suppression glove prototype was designed and validated with recorded tremor data from patients with Parkinson's disease. Two validation experiments were conducted to assess the performance of the proposed device when suppressing tremor motion and following voluntary motion. The tremor suppression assessment showed an overall tremor amplitude reduction of 85.0% ± 8.1%, and the power reductions for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonics are 87.9% ± 13.6%, 92.0% ± 7.4%, and 81.7% ± 13.0%, respectively. Following voluntary motion was possible with a RMSE of 14.2% ± 2.5% and a correlation coefficient of 0.97 ± 0.01. Both assessments have shown positive results for the validation of the proposed device; however, further work is needed to improve the performance of the proposed device prior to human trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207