A Subject-Specific Approach to Detect Fatigue-Related Changes in Spine Motion Using Wearable Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An objective method to detect muscle fatigue-related kinematic changes may reduce workplace injuries. However, heterogeneous responses to muscle fatigue suggest that subject-specific analyses are necessary. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine if wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) could be used in conjunction with a spine motion composite index (SMCI) to quantify subject-specific changes in spine kinematics during a repetitive spine flexion-extension (FE) task; and (2) determine if the SMCI was correlated with measures of global trunk muscle fatigue. Spine kinematics were measured using wearable IMUs in 10 healthy adults during a baseline set followed by 10 sets of 50 spine FE repetitions. After each set, two fatigue measures were collected: perceived level of fatigue using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and maximal lift strength. SMCIs incorporating 10 kinematic variables from 2 IMUs (pelvis and T8 vertebrae) were calculated and used to quantify subject-specific changes in movement. A main effect of set was observed (F (1.7, 15.32) = 10.42, p = 0.002), where the SMCI became significantly greater than set 1 starting at set 4. Significant correlations were observed between the SMCI and both fatigue VAS and maximal lift strength at the individual and study level. These findings support the use of wearable IMUs to detect subject-specific changes in spine motion associated with muscle fatigue.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".