A Multi-Sensor Cane Can Detect Changes in Gait Caused by Simulated Gait Abnormalities and Walking Terrains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the increasing rates of chronic diseases and an aging population, the use of assistive devices for ambulation is expected to grow rapidly over the next several years. Instrumenting these devices has been proposed as a non-invasive way to proactively monitor changes in gait due to the presence of pain or a condition in outdoor and indoor environments. In this paper, we evaluated the effectiveness of a multi-sensor cane in detecting changes in gait due to the presence of simulated gait abnormalities, walking terrains, impaired vision, and incorrect cane lengths. The effectiveness of the instrumented cane was compared with the results obtained directly from a shank-mounted inertial measurement unit. Results from 30 healthy participants obtained while simulating gait abnormalities and walking over different terrains demonstrated the ability of the cane to reliably and effectively discriminate among these walking conditions. Moreover, the results obtained while walking with impaired vision and incorrect cane lengths indicate the ability of cane to detect changes in gait during these scenarios as well.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".