MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990845518 · doi:10.3390/s19235141

Wearable-Sensor-Based Detection and Prediction of Freezing of Gait in Parkinson’s Disease: A Review

2019· review· en· W2990845518 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsWearable computerComputer scienceGaitMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWearable technologyFeature selectionFeature extractionParkinson's diseaseGeneralizationDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freezing of gait (FOG) is a serious gait disturbance, common in mid- and late-stage Parkinson's disease, that affects mobility and increases fall risk. Wearable sensors have been used to detect and predict FOG with the ultimate aim of preventing freezes or reducing their effect using gait monitoring and assistive devices. This review presents and assesses the state of the art of FOG detection and prediction using wearable sensors, with the intention of providing guidance on current knowledge, and identifying knowledge gaps that need to be filled and challenges to be considered in future studies. This review searched the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases to identify studies that used wearable sensors to detect or predict FOG episodes in Parkinson's disease. Following screening, 74 publications were included, comprising 68 publications detecting FOG, seven predicting FOG, and one in both categories. Details were extracted regarding participants, walking task, sensor type and body location, detection or prediction approach, feature extraction and selection, classification method, and detection and prediction performance. The results showed that increasingly complex machine-learning algorithms combined with diverse feature sets improved FOG detection. The lack of large FOG datasets and highly person-specific FOG manifestation were common challenges. Transfer learning and semi-supervised learning were promising for FOG detection and prediction since they provided person-specific tuning while preserving model generalization.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.228 · 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