Multivariate Analysis of Joint Motion Data by Kinect: Application to Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of joint motion data (AJMD) by Kinect, such as velocity, has been widely used in many research fields, many of which focused on how one joint moves with another, namely bivariate AJMD. However, these studies might not accurately reflect the motor symptoms in patients. The human body can be divided into six widely accepted parts (head, trunk and four limbs), which are interrelated and interact with each other. Therefore, in this study we attempted to investigate how the major joints of one body part move with the ones in another body part, namely multivariate AJMD. For method illustration, the motion data of sit-to-stand-to-sit for healthy participants and people with Parkinson disease (PD) were employed. Four types of multivariate AJMD were investigated by eigenspace-maximal-information-canonical-correlation-analysis, which obtained maximal- information-eigen-coefficients (MIECes), the parameters for quantifying the correlation between two sets of joints located in two different body parts. The results show that healthy participants have significantly higher MIECes than the PD patients (p-value < 0.0001). Furthermore, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value for the classification between healthy participants and PD patients reaches up to 1.00. In conclusion, we demonstrated the possibility of using multivariate AJMD for motion feature extraction, which may be helpful for medical research and engineering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".