Classification of high knee flexion postures using EMG signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".