MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964855920 · doi:10.1098/rsos.191410

Characterizing the limits of human stability during motion: perturbative experiment validates a model-based approach for the Sit-to-Stand task

2020· preprint· en· W2964855920 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Holmes, Shannon M. Danforth, Xiaoyu Fu, Talia Y. Moore, Ram Vasudevan

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationDivision of Graduate Education
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Control theory (sociology)Perturbation (astronomy)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceOutcome (game theory)PopulationPredictive powerTask (project management)Motion (physics)Control (management)SimulationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringMachine learningPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falls affect a growing number of the population each year. Clinical methods to assess fall risk usually evaluate the performance of specific motions such as balancing or Sit-to-Stand. Unfortunately, these techniques have been shown to have poor predictive power, and are unable to identify the portions of motion that are most unstable. To this end, it may be useful to identify the set of body configurations that can accomplish a task under a specified control strategy. The resulting strategy-specific boundary between stable and unstable motion could be used to identify individuals at risk of falling. The recently proposed Stability Basin is defined as the set of configurations through time that do not lead to failure for an individual under their chosen control strategy. This paper presents a novel method to compute the Stability Basin and the first experimental validation of the Stability Basin with a perturbative Sit-to-Stand experiment involving forwards or backwards pulls from a motor-driven cable with 11 subjects. The individually-constructed Stability Basins are used to identify when a trial fails, i.e. when an individual must switch from their chosen control strategy (indicated by a step or sit) to recover from a perturbation. The constructed Stability Basins correctly predict the outcome of trials where failure was observed with over <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"><mml:mn>90</mml:mn><mml:mtext>%</mml:mtext></mml:math> accuracy, and correctly predict the outcome of successful trials with over <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"><mml:mn>95</mml:mn><mml:mtext>%</mml:mtext></mml:math> accuracy. The Stability Basin was compared to three other methods and was found to estimate the stable region with over <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"><mml:mn>45</mml:mn><mml:mtext>%</mml:mtext></mml:math> more accuracy in all cases. This study demonstrates that Stability Basins offer a novel model-based approach for quantifying stability during motion, which could be used in physical therapy for individuals at risk of falling.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207