MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131638281 · doi:10.3233/wor-203404

Classification of high knee flexion postures using EMG signals

2021· article· en· W3131638281 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie F. Laudanski, Stacey M. Acker

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKnee flexionPattern recognition (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceOsteoarthritisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High knee flexion postures are often adopted in occupational settings and may lead to increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. Pattern recognition algorithms using wireless electromyographic (EMG) signals may be capable of detecting and quantifying occupational exposures throughout a working day. OBJECTIVE: To develop a k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) algorithm for the classification of eight high knee flexion activities frequently observed in childcare. METHODS: EMG signals from eight lower limb muscles were recorded for 30 participants, signals were decomposed into time- and frequency-domain features, and used to develop a kNN classification algorithm. Features were reduced to a combination of ten time-domain features from 8 muscles using neighborhood component analysis, in order to most effectively identify the postures of interest. RESULTS: The final classifier was capable of accurately identifying 80.1%of high knee flexion postures based on novel data from participants included in the training dataset, yet only achieved 18.4%accuracy when predicting postures based on novel subject data. CONCLUSIONS: EMG based classification of high flexion postures may be possible within occupational settings when the model is first trained on sample data from a given individual. The developed algorithm may provide quantitative measures leading to a greater understanding of occupation specific postural requirements.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207