MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212146894 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3127327

Automatically Segmenting Physical Performance Test Items for Older Adults Using a Doppler Radar: A Proof of Concept Study

2021· article· en· W3212146894 on OpenAlexaff
Yiyuan Zhang, Oluwatosin J. Babarinde, Pengxuan Han, Xiangyu Wang, Peter Karsmakers, Dominique Schreurs, Sabine Verschueren, Bart Vanrumste

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsComputer scienceStairsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceDuration (music)Machine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the performance of physical activities through the modified physical performance test (mPPT) is a known approach for predicting the frailty level in older adults. This study proposes a system comprising of a continuous-wave (CW) radar for data acquisition and deep neural network (DNN) models (convolutional neural network (CNN) and convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN)) as classifiers to automatically segment the mPPT items. These two DNN models were trained and evaluated in a leave-one- participant-out (LOPO) cross-validation procedure with a transfer learning method. To segment the mPPT items during recording by the radar, an additional flag activity was employed, which involves having the volunteer wave their hands at the start of each activity. Compared to the CNN, the CRNN achieved better classification performance, with the f1-score ranging from 0.3445 (lifting a book) to 0.9509 (standing balance). The recognition result was then used to segment the time series data and predict each item’s duration. The average absolute duration prediction error ranged from 0.78 s (standing balance) to 2.78 s (climbing stairs). The result implied that the system has the potential to segment mPPT items automatically. Future works will be focused on accomplish all the evaluation criteria automatically, e.g., the steadiness and continuity of steps while turning 360°, and improve the low classification result of some mPPT items like lifting a book.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207