MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2960919022 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220012

The use of smartphone in measuring stance and gait patterns in patients with orthostatic tremor

2019· article· en· W2960919022 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jung Hung Chien, Diego Torres‐Russotto, Zhuo Wang, Chenfan Gui, David Whitney, Ka‐Chun Siu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLundbeck CanadaTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesIpsenNebraska Space Grant ConsortiumInternational Business Machines CorporationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAccelerometerBalance (ability)GaitMedicinePostural instabilityForce platformPreferred walking speedEyes openActigraphyPhysical therapyPsychologyParkinson's diseaseComputer scienceCircadian rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orthostatic tremor (OT) is a rare movement disorder characterized by a fast tremor (13-18 Hz) in the lower extremities during stance. Patients with OT typically complain of instability while standing/walking. However, due to the geographical limitation, the standing instability or gait problems in patients with OT cannot be assessed and monitored frequently. The increasing popularity of using smartphone-based accelerometers could be a solution to eliminate this limitation. This study examined the feasibility of using smartphone-based accelerometers to identify the changes in body movement in different standing and locomotor tasks. Twenty patients with OT and seven healthy controls were consented to participate in this study. Subjects stood with eyes open or eyes closed for 20 seconds. They also performed four different locomotor tasks (normal walking, tandem walk, walking on an elevated surface, and obstacle negotiation). When performed different locomotor tasks, patients with OT had a larger acceleration of body movement than controls in the medial-lateral direction (tandem walk: p = 0.026, walking on an elevated surface: p = 0.002, and stepping over the obstacle: p = 0.028). Patients with OT had smaller acceleration of body movement than controls while standing with eyes open in the vertical direction (p = 0.012), in the anterior-posterior direction (p = 0.013) and in the medial-lateral direction (p = 0.011). This study provides objective evidence of balance instability in patients with OT not only while standing but also during different challenging locomotor tasks by using smartphone-based accelerometers.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→