Perspectives and recommendations of individuals with tetraplegia regarding wearable cameras for monitoring hand function at home: Insights from a community-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Wearable cameras have great potential for producing novel outcome measures of upper limb (UL) function and guiding care in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) living in the community. However, little is known about the perspectives of individuals with cSCI on the potential adoption of this technology. OBJECTIVE: To analyze feedback from individuals with cSCI regarding the use of wearable cameras to record daily activities at home, in order to define guidelines for improving the design of this technology and fostering its implementation to optimize UL rehabilitation. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen adults with cSCI C3-C8 AIS A-D impairment. MEASURES: Interview including survey and semi-structured questions. RESULTS: Participants felt that this technology can provide naturalistic information regarding hand use to clinicians and researchers, which in turn can lead to better assessments of UL function and optimized therapies. Participants described the technology as easy-to-use but often reported discomfort that prevented them from conducting long recordings of fully natural activities. Privacy concerns included the possibility to capture household members and personal information displayed on objects (e.g. smartphones). CONCLUSION: We provide the first set of guidelines to help researchers and therapists understand which steps need to be taken to translate wearable cameras into outpatient care and community-based research for UL rehabilitation. These guidelines include miniaturized and easy-to-wear cameras, as well as multiple measures for preventing privacy concerns such as avoiding public spaces and providing control over the recordings (e.g. start and stop the recordings at any time, keep or delete a recording).
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".