MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973438844 · doi:10.1177/2327857919081032

Comparison of Gait Speed Estimation of Multiple Sensor-Based Technologies

2019· article· en· W2973438844 on OpenAlexaff
Plinio Pelegrini Morita, Adson Silva Rocha, George Shaker, Doojin Lee, Jing Wei, B. Fong, Anjali Thatte, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Lin Xu, Avery Ma, Alex Wong, Jennifer Boger

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooResearch Institute for AgingUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePopulationPopulation ageingPsychological interventionQuality of life (healthcare)Independence (probability theory)Health careApplied psychologyMedicinePsychologyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of our aging population, there is an immediate need for non-obtrusive, continuous, and ubiquitous health monitoring technologies that will enable our population to age with a higher quality of life and independence. Research has demonstrated that gait indicators, such as walking speed, can reflect cognitive and physical functioning. However, gradual changes in such indicators usually go undetected until critical problems arise; being able to detect changes in indicators, such as gait deterioration, of older adults while in their home environments would enable clinicians to tailor more effective and personalized interventions by better understanding user behaviour in real-world settings. Real-world data is essential to enabling our healthcare system to act where patients most need help and to optimize the effect of designed eHealth solutions.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health CareSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207