MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999371779 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab6917

Accurate foot clearance estimation during level and uneven ground walking using inertial sensors

2020· article· en· W2999371779 on OpenAlexaff
Bingfei Fan, Qingguo Li, Tao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInertial measurement unitFoot (prosody)Inertial frame of referenceGeodesyGround reaction forceComputer scienceEstimationAcousticsGeologyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceKinematicsEngineeringArtClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foot clearance during walking is considered as a key indicator for assessing fall risk, obstacle negotiation strategies and energy expenditure. Foot clearance estimation using inertial measurement units (IMUs) has the advantages of small size, low cost and user-friendliness. However, its application is still limited due to issues with accuracy and reliability. In this paper, we aimed at understanding the limiting factors in foot clearance estimation using low-cost IMUs and proposed a foot clearance estimation method with millimeter-level accuracy. We first analyzed each component in conventional double-integration-based foot clearance estimation, and then proposed a set of new procedures for foot trajectory estimation, including a gait-adaptive complementary filter for orientation estimation, a two-IMU configuration and a shock absorber. Finally, we extracted the foot clearance from the estimated foot trajectory. In the experiments, we recruited eight healthy subjects and instructed them to walk under level and uneven ground conditions; moreover, to validate the applicability of the proposed method, we also instructed the subjects to mimic pathological gaits, including ataxic gait (zigzag walking), waddling gait and Parkinsonian gait. A total of 2640 gait cycles were collected and the extracted foot clearances were benchmarked with the optical motion capture system. With the proposed method, the average mean and standard deviation of the extracted maximal heel clearance and minimal toe clearance in all the gait cycles were −0.34 ± 0.24 cm and 0.02 ± 0.26 cm. The results are more accurate than in previous studies. Most importantly, the proposed method does not require any post correction and flat-floor assumption. The presented foot clearance estimation method provides an applicable and practical clinical solution not only for heel and toe clearance estimation but also for foot trajectory estimation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207