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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

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 head0.041
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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