Validity of using wearable inertial sensors for assessing the dynamics of standing balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational balance tests (e.g., Berg Balance Scale) are used to evaluate fall-risk. However, they tend to be subjective, and their reliability and sensitivity can be limited. The use of in-lab equipment for objective balance evaluation has not been common in clinical practice, due to the requirement of an equipped lab space. While inertial measurement units (IMUs) enable objective out-of-lab balance assessment, their accuracy has not been validated. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of IMUs against in-lab equipment for characterizing standing balance. Ten non-disabled individuals participated in a two-minute standing test on a force-plate. Four approaches were used for estimating inter-segmental moments and center of pressure (COP) position in a four-segment model: (1) camera-based bottom-up approach; (2) camera-based top-down approach; (3) IMU-based (accelerometer) top-down approach; and (4) IMU-based (accelerometer and gyroscope) top-down approach. Approaches 2 to 4 resulted in high accuracy compared to the reference, Approach 1. The root-mean-square errors in estimating the segments' orientation, ground reaction forces, COP position, and joint moments were smaller than 0.3°, 0.2 N/kg, 1.5 mm, and 0.016N·m/kg, respectively. Since no significant differences were observed between the accuracy of Approaches 3 and 4, only accelerometer recordings are needed and could be recommended for monitoring standing balance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".