Dimensional reduction of balance parameters in risk of falling evaluation using a minimal number of force-sensitive resistors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. As the instrumented insole is available for a wide commercial range in the retail trade, this study aims to reduce its overall cost using fewer sensors by carrying out an effective risk of falling evaluation. Methods. We compared the effect of reducing balance parameters using four and three force-sensing resistors (FSRs) of an instrumented insole. Data were previously collected among elderly participants during a Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Results. While reducing the number of balance parameters, during sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit activities, the risk scores using four FSRs were not significantly different compared with three FSRs. Parameter reduction did not show any significant loss of information among the study population using four FSRs. For certain configurations of three FSRs, a significant effect of information loss was found in the study participants, revealing the importance of investigating the sensor locations in the process. Conclusions. We conclude that it is feasible to estimate a risk index during a TUG test not only after reducing the number of needed sensing units from four to three FSRs but also after reducing the number of balance parameters. The three FSRs should be located at strategic positions to avoid a significant loss of information.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".