Development of an Automated Minimum Foot Clearance Measurement System: Proof of Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over half of older adult falls are caused by tripping. Many of these trips are likely due to obstacles present on walkways that put older adults or other individuals with low foot clearance at risk. Yet, Minimum Foot Clearance (MFC) values have not been measured in real-world settings and existing methods make it difficult to do so. In this paper, we present the Minimum Foot Clearance Estimation (MFCE) system that includes a device for collecting calibrated video data from pedestrians on outdoor walkways and a computer vision algorithm for estimating MFC values for these individuals. This system is designed to be positioned at ground level next to a walkway to efficiently collect sagittal plane videos of many pedestrians' feet, which is then processed offline to obtain MFC estimates. Five-hundred frames of video data collected from 50 different pedestrians was used to train (370 frames) and test (130 frames) a convolutional neural network. Finally, data from 10 pedestrians was analyzed manually by three raters and compared to the results of the network. The footwear detection network had an Intersection over Union of 85% and was able to find the bottom of a segmented shoe with a 3-pixel average error. Root Mean Squared (RMS) errors for the manual and automated methods for estimating MFC values were 2.32 mm, and 3.70 mm, respectively. Future work will compare the accuracy of the MFCE system to a gold standard motion capture system and the system will be used to estimate the distribution of MFC values for the population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".