MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200793651 · doi:10.32393/csme.2021.187

Sitting Pressure Analysis Using A Partial Calibrated Pressure Mat

2021· article· en· W3200793651 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kanglin Xing, Tarek Dief, Chester Ho, Hossein Rouhani

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 4 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure mapping is a non-invasive and reliable method for clinical assessment of the risk of pressure injury. A pressure mat is a common tool for sitting pressure measurement. Misuse or misalignment of inflator bag can form a partially calibrated pressure mat and generate unreliable and imprecise measurement results. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a procedure that can improve the applicability of a partially operational pressure mat and (2) to assess the precision of the proposed procedure by validating the sitting pressure distribution and center of pressure (COP) against the simultaneous measurement results of a fully calibrated pressure mat. To this end, first, recordings of pressure sensor elements were sorted by the sensor element position. Second, the recordings obtained by the non-calibrated areas were corrected to zero while the recordings of calibrated areas were kept without any correction. Third, the recordings of calibrated and non-calibrated areas were composed accordingly to form the nominal readings of a fully calibrated pressure mat. Then, the nominal readings were processed by our proposed graphical user interface (GUI) which contained the standard pressure data processing methods used by the relevant commercial pressure mat. Finally, the statistical parameters of pressure distribution and COP were calculated. The proposed procedure was validated by the data measured with two "FSA" pressure mats (Vista Medical Ltd, Canada). One partially calibrated and one fully calibrated pressure mats were placed fully aligned to each other on a flat surface. Both pressure mats recorded synchronously in the following experimental tests: 1) a concentrated weight was applied to predetermined positions to investigate the COP offset of two pressure mats and 2) five participants sat still on the pressure mats 5 times each. The COPs obtained for the five predetermined positions measured by two pressure mats were fitted with a least square method. The fitted origin offset of two mats in the X and Y axis is 2.4 mm and 9.35 mm, respectively. For the sitting pressure measurement, the two pressure mats had the same readings of maximum pressure and similar readings of mean pressure, variance and standard deviation with the difference of less than 10% of the reading of the fully calibrated pressure mat. Similar differences were observed in COP value of X and Y axis. In conclusion, our developed procedure together with a GUI could be a suitable solution to the data processing of a partially calibration pressure mat.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 4Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207