Fall risk classification for people with lower extremity amputations using random forests and smartphone sensor features from a 6-minute walk test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fall-risk classification is a challenging but necessary task to enable the recommendation of preventative programs for individuals identified at risk for falling. Existing research has primarily focused on older adults, with no predictive fall-risk models for lower limb amputees, despite their greater likelihood of fall-risk than older adults. In this study, 89 amputees with varying degrees of lower limb amputation were asked if they had fallen in the past 6 months. Those who reported at least one fall were considered a fall risk. Each participant performed a 6 minute walk test (6MWT) with an Android smartphone placed in a holder located on the back of the pelvis. A fall-risk classification method was developed using data from sensors within the smartphone. The Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Center Walk Test app captured accelerometer and gyroscope data during the 6MWT. From this data, foot strikes were identified, and 248 features were extracted from the collection of steps. Steps were segmented into turn and straight walking, and four different data sets were created: turn steps, straightaway steps, straightaway and turn steps, and all steps. From these, three feature selection techniques (correlation-based feature selection, relief F, and extra trees classifier ensemble) were used to eliminate redundant or ineffective features. Each feature subset was tested with a random forest classifier and optimized for the best number of trees. The best model used turn data, with three features selected by Correlation-based feature selection (CFS), and used 500 trees in a random forest classifier. The resulting metrics were 81.3% accuracy, 57.2% sensitivity, 94.9% specificity, a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.587, and an F1 score of 0.83. Since the outcomes are comparable to metrics achieved by existing clinical tests, the classifier may be viable for use in clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".