How Long Should GPS Recording Lengths Be to Capture the Community Mobility of An Older Clinical Population? A Parkinson’s Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable global position system (GPS) technology can help those working with older populations and people living with movement disorders monitor and maintain their mobility level. Health research using GPS often employs inconsistent recording lengths due to the lack of a standard minimum GPS recording length for a clinical context. Our work aimed to recommend a GPS recording length for an older clinical population. Over 14 days, 70 older adults with Parkinson's disease wore the wireless inertial motion unit with GPS (WIMU-GPS) during waking hours to capture daily "time outside", "trip count", "hotspots count" and "area size travelled". The longest recording length accounting for weekend and weekdays was ≥7 days of ≥800 daily minutes of data (14 participants with 156, 483.9 min recorded). We compared the error rate generated when using data based on recording lengths shorter than this sample. The smallest percentage errors were observed across all outcomes, except "hotspots count", with daily recordings ≥500 min (8.3 h). Eight recording days will capture mobility variability throughout days of the week. This study adds empirical evidence to the sensor literature on the required minimum duration of GPS recording.
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 | 0.026 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".