Toward mitigating pressure injuries: Detecting patient orientation from vertical bed reaction forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prolonged bed rest without repositioning can lead to pressure injuries. However, it can be challenging for caregivers and patients to adhere to repositioning schedules. A device that alerts caregivers when a patient has remained in the same orientation for too long may reduce the incidence and/or severity of pressure injuries. This paper proposes a method to detect a person's orientation in bed using data from load cells placed under the legs of a hospital grade bed. METHODS: Twenty able-bodied individuals were positioned into one of three orientations (supine, left side-lying, or right side-lying) either with no support, a pillow, or a wedge, and the head of the bed either raised or lowered. Breathing pattern characteristics extracted from force data were used to train two machine learning classification systems (Logistic Regression and Feed Forward Neural Network) and then evaluate for their ability to identify each participant's orientation using a leave-one-participant-out cross-validation. RESULTS: The Feed Forward Neural Network yielded the highest orientation prediction accuracy at 94.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The high accuracy of this non-invasive system's ability to a participant's position in bed shows potential for this algorithm to be useful in developing a pressure injury prevention tool.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".