MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036003990 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2020.3003643

Tenodesis Grasp Detection in Egocentric Video

2020· article· en· W3036003990 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdy Dousty, José Zariffa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsGRASPComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) can impair motor function in the upper limbs. Video from wearable cameras (egocentric video) has the potential to provide monitoring of rehabilitation outcomes at home, but methods for automated analysis of this data are needed. Wrist flexion and extension are essential elements to track grasping strategies after cSCI, as they may reflect the use of the tenodesis grasp, a common compensatory strategy. However, there is no established method to evaluate wrist flexion and extension from egocentric video. METHODS: We propose a machine-learning-based approach comprising three steps-hand detection, pose estimation, and arm orientation estimation-to estimate wrist angle data, leading to the detection of tenodesis grasp. RESULTS: The hand detection in conjunction with the pose estimation algorithm correctly located wrist and index finger metacarpophalangeal coordinates in 63% and 76% of 15,319 annotated frames, respectively, extracted from egocentric videos of individuals with cSCI performing activities of daily living in a home simulation laboratory. The arm orientation algorithm had a mean absolute error of 2.76 +/- 0.39 degrees in 12,863 labeled frames. Using these estimates, the presence of a tenodesis grasp was correctly detected in 72% +/- 11% of frames in videos of 6 activities. CONCLUSION: The results provided a clear indication of which participants relied on tenodesis grasp and which did not. SIGNIFICANCE: This paradigm provides the first method that can enable clinicians and researchers to monitor the use of the tenodesis grasp by individuals with cSCI at home, with implications for remote therapeutic guidance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207