Towards Clustering Hand Grasps of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury in Egocentric Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) can cause paralysis and impair hand function. Existing assessments in clinical settings do not reflect an individual's performance in their daily environment. Videos from wearable cameras (egocentric video) provide a novel avenue to analyze hand function in non-clinical settings. Due to the large amounts of video data generated by this approach, automated analysis methods are necessary. We propose to employ an unsupervised learning process to produce a summary of the grasping strategies used in an egocentric video. To this end, an approach was developed consisting of hand detection, pose estimation, and clustering algorithms. The performance of the method was examined with external evaluation indicators and internal evaluation indicators for an uninjured and injured participant, respectively. The results demonstrated that a Gaussian mixture model obtained the highest accuracy in terms of the maximum match, 0.63, and the Rand index, 0.26, for the uninjured participant, and a silhouette score of 0.13 for the injured participant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".