MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconstruction of body motion during self-reported losses of balance in community-dwelling older adults

2018· article· en· W2906227978 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lauro Ojeda, Peter G. Adamczyk, John R. Rebula, Linda Nyquist, Debra M. Strasburg, N. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of AgingNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute on AgingMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health ResearchUniversity of MichiganU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceWearable computerInertial measurement unitBalance (ability)SmartwatchEvent (particle physics)Artificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineEmbedded systemHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults experience slips, trips, stumbles, and other losses of balance (LOBs). LOBs are more common than falls and are closely linked to falls and fall-injuries. Data about real-world LOBs is limited, particularly information quantifying the prevalence, frequency, and intrinsic and extrinsic circumstances in which they occur. This paper describes a new method to identify and analyze LOBs through long-term recording of community-dwelling older adults. The approach uses wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) on the feet, trunk and one wrist, together with a voice recorder for immediate, time-stamped self-reporting of the type, context and description of LOBs. Following identification of an LOB in the voice recording, concurrent IMU data is used to estimate foot paths and body motions, and to create body animations to analyze the event. In this pilot study, three older adults performed a long-term monitoring study, with four weeks recording LOBs by voice and two concurrent weeks wearing IMUs. This report presents a series of LOB cases to illustrate the proposed method, and how it can contribute to interpretation of the causes and contexts of the LOBs. The context and timing information from the voice records was critical to the process of finding and analyzing LOB events within the voluminous sensor data record, and included much greater detail, specificity, and nuance than past diary or smartphone reporting.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207