MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897505827 · doi:10.1109/biorob.2018.8487199

Estimation of Knee Joint Angle Using a Fabric-Based Strain Sensor and Machine Learning: A Preliminary Investigation

2018· article· en· W2897505827 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Gholami, Andreas Ejupi, Ahmad Rezaei, Andrea Ferrone, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnee JointWearable computerArtificial intelligenceKnee flexionKinematicsComputer scienceStrain (injury)Machine learningGaitTask (project management)SimulationComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyEngineeringMedicinePhysicsEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring human knee kinematics has various health applications including in-home rehabilitation and longterm tracking of movements of people with knee disorders. We proposed a wearable system based on a stretchable strain sensor and investigated its feasibility to estimate the knee joint angle in tasks of walking and static knee flexion. A pilot study with six subjects was conducted in which participants were asked to walk and perform flexion exercises at multiple speeds. Two commonly used machine learning algorithms (neural network and random forest) were utilized to estimate the knee joint angle based on the strain sensor data. The performance of the proposed approach was assessed in an intra- and inter-subject evaluation. In the intra-subject evaluation., the average mean absolute error (MAE) in estimating the knee joint angle during the walking task and flexion exercises was 1.94 and 3.02 degrees., respectively., with a similar coefficient of determination R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> of 0.97. In the inter-subject evaluation., an average MAE of 4.14 degrees in the walking task and 6.97 degrees in the knee flexion exercises was achieved with a R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> of 0.90. Our results suggest the feasibility of our approach., which includes a fabric-based strain sensor and machine learning., to estimate the knee joint angle. In future, this method might be used in various applications including the fields of healthcare., virtual reality and robotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207