MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200749070 · doi:10.2196/29769

Application of Inertial Measurement Units and Machine Learning Classification in Cerebral Palsy: Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3200749070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siavash Khaksar, Huizhu Pan, Bita Borazjani, Iain Murray, Himanshu Agrawal, Wanquan Liu, Catherine Elliott, Christine Imms, Amity Campbell, Corrin Walmsley

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShandong Academy of Sciences
KeywordsCerebral palsyInertial measurement unitInclinometerRandomized controlled trialWristPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyRange of motionArtificial intelligenceKinematicsEuler anglesMotion capturePsychologyComputer scienceMedicineMotion (physics)MathematicsGeographySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a physical disability that affects movement and posture. Approximately 17 million people worldwide and 34,000 people in Australia are living with CP. In clinical and kinematic research, goniometers and inclinometers are the most commonly used clinical tools to measure joint angles and positions in children with CP. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents collaborative research between the School of Electrical Engineering, Computing and Mathematical Sciences at Curtin University and a team of clinicians in a multicenter randomized controlled trial involving children with CP. This study aims to develop a digital solution for mass data collection using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and the application of machine learning (ML) to classify the movement features associated with CP to determine the effectiveness of therapy. The results were calculated without the need to measure Euler, quaternion, and joint measurement calculation, reducing the time required to classify the data. METHODS: Custom IMUs were developed to record the usual wrist movements of participants in 2 age groups. The first age group consisted of participants approaching 3 years of age, and the second age group consisted of participants approaching 15 years of age. Both groups consisted of participants with and without CP. The IMU data were used to calculate the joint angle of the wrist movement and determine the range of motion. A total of 9 different ML algorithms were used to classify the movement features associated with CP. This classification can also confirm if the current treatment (in this case, the use of wrist extension) is effective. RESULTS: Upon completion of the project, the wrist joint angle was successfully calculated and validated against Vicon motion capture. In addition, the CP movement was classified as a feature using ML on raw IMU data. The Random Forrest algorithm achieved the highest accuracy of 87.75% for the age range approaching 15 years, and C4.5 decision tree achieved the highest accuracy of 89.39% for the age range approaching 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Anecdotal feedback from Minimising Impairment Trial researchers was positive about the potential for IMUs to contribute accurate data about active range of motion, especially in children, for whom goniometric methods are challenging. There may also be potential to use IMUs for continued monitoring of hand movements throughout the day. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12614001276640, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367398; ANZCTR ACTRN12614001275651, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367422.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207