MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174141261 · doi:10.3390/s21134356

Longitudinal In-Bed Pressure Signals Decomposition and Gradients Analysis for Pressure Injury Monitoring

2021· article· en· W3174141261 on OpenAlexafffund
Nasim Hajari, Carlos Lastre-Domínguez, Chester Ho, Oscar Ibarra‐Manzano, Irene Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryPressure sensorPipeline (software)Computer scienceWheelchairInterface (matter)Snapshot (computer storage)SimulationReal-time computingEngineeringMedicineSpinal cordMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure injury (PI) is a major problem for patients that are bound to a wheelchair or bed, such as seniors or people with spinal cord injuries. This condition can be life threatening in its later stages. It can be very costly to the healthcare system as well. Fortunately with proper monitoring and assessment, PI development can be prevented. The major factor that causes PI is prolonged interface pressure between the body and the support surface. A possible solution to reduce the chance of developing PI is changing the patient's in-bed pose at appropriate times. Monitoring in-bed pressure can help healthcare providers to locate high-pressure areas, and remove or minimize pressure on those regions. The current clinical method of interface pressure monitoring is limited by periodic snapshot assessments, without longitudinal measurements and analysis. In this paper we propose a pressure signal analysis pipeline to automatically eliminate external artefacts from pressure data, estimate a person's pose, and locate and track high-risk regions over time so that necessary attention can be provided.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207