Adaptability of Assistive Mobility Devices and the Role of the Internet of Medical Things: Comprehensive Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the projected upsurge in the percentage of people with some form of disability, there has been a significant increase in the need for assistive mobility devices. However, for mobility aids to be effective, such devices should be adapted to the user's needs. This can be achieved by improving the confidence of the acquired information (interaction between the user, the environment, and the device) following design specifications. Therefore, there is a need for literature review on the adaptability of assistive mobility devices. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to review the adaptability of assistive mobility devices and the role of the internet of medical things in terms of the acquired information for assistive mobility devices. We review internet-enabled assistive mobility technologies and non-internet of things (IoT) assistive mobility devices. These technologies will provide awareness of the status of adaptive mobility technology and serve as a source and reference regarding information to health care professionals and researchers. METHODS: We performed a literature review search on the following databases of academic references and journals: Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Springer, and websites of assistive mobility and foundations presenting studies on assistive mobility found through a generic Google search (including the World Health Organization website). The following keywords were used: assistive mobility OR assistive robots, assistive mobility devices, internet-enabled assistive mobility technologies, IoT Framework OR IoT Architecture AND for Healthcare, assisted navigation OR autonomous navigation, mobility AND aids OR devices, adaptability of assistive technology, adaptive mobility devices, pattern recognition, autonomous navigational systems, human-robot interfaces, motor rehabilitation devices, perception, and ambient assisted living. RESULTS: We identified 13,286 results (excluding titles that were not relevant to this study). Then, through a narrative review, we selected 189 potential studies (189/13,286, 1.42%) from the existing literature on the adaptability of assistive mobility devices and IoT frameworks for assistive mobility and conducted a critical analysis. Of the 189 potential studies, 82 (43.4%) were selected for analysis after meeting the inclusion criteria. On the basis of the type of technologies presented in the reviewed articles, we proposed a categorization of the adaptability of smart assistive mobility devices in terms of their interaction with the user (user system interface), perception techniques, and communication and sensing frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: We discussed notable limitations of the reviewed literature studies. The findings revealed that an improvement in the adaptation of assistive mobility systems would require a reduction in training time and avoidance of cognitive overload. Furthermore, sensor fusion and classification accuracy are critical for achieving real-world testing requirements. Finally, the trade-off between cost and performance should be considered in the commercialization of these devices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it