MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990605185 · doi:10.3390/s19235179

Pilot Study of the EncephaLog Smartphone Application for Gait Analysis

2019· article· en· W2990605185 on OpenAlexaff
Keren Tchelet, Alit Stark‐Inbar, Ziv Yekutieli

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMontfort Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWearable computerGait analysisLimitingMotion (physics)PopulationSmartphone applicationComputer scienceSimulationMedicineEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait disorders and falls are common in elders and in many clinical conditions, yet they are typically infrequently and subjectively evaluated, limiting prevention and intervention. Completion-time of the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test is a well-accepted clinical biomarker for rating mobility and prediction of falls risk. Using smartphones’ integral accelerometers and gyroscopes, we already demonstrated that TUG completion-time can be accurately measured via a smartphone app. Here we present an extended app, EncephaLogTM, which provides gait analysis in much more detail, offering 9 additional gait biomarkers on top of the TUG completion-time. In this pilot, four healthy adults participated in a total of 32 TUG tests; simultaneously recorded by EncephaLog and motion sensor devices used in movement labs: motion capture cameras (MCC), pressure mat; and/or wearable sensors. Results show high agreement between EncephaLog biomarkers and those measured by the other devices. These preliminary results suggest that EncephaLog can provide an accurate, yet simpler, instrumented TUG (iTUG) platform than existing alternatives, offering a solution for clinics that cannot afford the cost or space required for a dedicated motion lab and for monitoring patients at their homes. Further research on a larger study population with pathologies is required to assess full validity.

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)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207