MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183613279 · doi:10.18280/ts.380306

Implementation of Artifact Removal Algorithms in Gait Signals for Diagnosis of Parkinson Disease

2021· article· en· W3183613279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erdoğan Özel, Ramazan Teki̇n, Yılmaz Kaya

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseArtifact (error)GaitNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Logistic regressionComputer scienceMovement disordersArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseMathematicsMedicineStatisticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological disease that progresses further over time. Individuals suffering from this condition have a deficiency of dopamine, a neurotransmitter found in the brain's nerve cells that is critical for coordinating body movement. In this study, a new approach is proposed for the diagnosis of PD. Common Average Reference (CAR), Median Common Average Reference (MCAR), and Weighted Common Average Reference (WCAR) methods were primarily utilized to eliminate noise from the multichannel recorded walking signals in the resulting PhysioNet dataset. Statistical features were obtained from the clean walking signals following the Local Binary Pattern (LBP) transformation application. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and K-nearest neighbor (Knn) methods were utilized in the classification stage. A high success rate with a value of 92.96% was observed with Knn. It was also determined that signals on which foot and the signals obtained from which point of the sole of the foot were effective in PD diagnosis in the study. In light of the findings, it was observed that noise reduction methods increased the success rate of PD diagnosis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207