A Scoping Review on Minimum Foot Clearance Measurement: Sensing Modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Falls are a major public health issue and tripping is the most common self-reported cause of outdoor falls. Minimum foot clearance (MFC) is a key parameter for identifying the probability of tripping. Optical motion capture systems are commonly used to measure MFC values; however, there is a need to identify alternative modalities that are better suited to collecting data in real-world settings. Objective: This is the first of a two-part scoping review. The objective of this paper is to identify and evaluate alternative measurement modalities to optical motion capture systems for measuring level-ground MFC. A companion paper identifies conditions that impact MFC and the range of MFC values individuals that these conditions exhibit. Methods: We searched four electronic databases, where peer-reviewed journals and conference papers reporting level-ground MFC characteristics were identified. The papers were screened by two independent reviewers for inclusion. The reporting was done in keeping with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Results: From an initial search of 1571 papers, 17 papers were included in this paper. The identified technologies were inertial measurement units (IMUs) (n = 10), ultrasonic sensors (n = 2), infrared sensors (IR) (n = 2), optical proximity sensors (OPS) (n = 1), laser ranging sensors (n = 1), and ultra-wideband sensors (n = 1). From the papers, we extracted the sensor type, the analysis methods, the properties of the proposed system, and its accuracy and validation methods. Conclusions: The two most commonly used alternative modalities were IMUs and OPS. There was a lack of standardization among studies utilizing the same measurement modalities, as well as discrepancies in the methods used to assess performance. We provide a list of recommendations for future work to allow for more meaningful comparison between modalities as well as future research directions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".