MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design and validation of a novel 3D-printed wearable device for monitoring knee joint kinematics

2021· article· en· W3165195128 on OpenAlexafffund
Calvin Young, Michele Oliver, Karen Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsWearable computerGaitWearable technologyComputer scienceTreadmillKnee JointMotion captureGait analysisMean squared errorSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiomechanicsArtificial intelligencePhysical therapyMathematicsMedicineMotion (physics)StatisticsEmbedded systemSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait analysis provides an important tool for the study and clinical evaluation of conditions which affect knee joint biomechanics. Collection of knee joint kinematics in real world environments during locomotor activities of daily living could provide quantitative evidence to help understand functional impairment. Unfortunately, the high cost and necessary technical expertise associated with current commercially available systems for kinematic monitoring serve as an impediment to their adoption outside of specialized research groups. We have developed a low-cost, custom wearable device to address these shortcomings. The 3D printed device is capable of measuring knee flexion/extension (F/E) and adduction/abduction (AD/AB) angles. Here, we present a gold standard validation of the novel device against an optoelectronic motion capture system (MCS). Data were collected during a treadmill walking task from 8 participants on 2 separate occasions. Agreement with the MCS was quantified via root mean squared error (RMSE), coefficients of multiple correlation (CMC), paired dependent t-tests and Bland-Altman analyses. The wearable device had an overall RMSE of 3.0° and 2.7° and a CMC of 0.97 and 0.91 in F/E and AD/AB respectively. Wearable device error showed no significant differences between test occasions, and Bland-Altman analyses showed low bias with narrow limits of agreement. These results demonstrate the capability of the device to accurately and reliably monitor knee F/E and AD/AB angles showing strong potential for field implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207