Objective Measurement of Hyperactivity Using Mobile Sensing and Machine Learning: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although hyperactivity is a core symptom of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there are no objective measures that are widely used in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We describe the development of a smartwatch app to measure hyperactivity in school-age children. The LemurDx prototype is a software system for smartwatches that uses wearable sensor technology and machine learning to measure hyperactivity. The goal is to differentiate children with ADHD combined presentation (a combination of inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive presentations) or predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation from children with typical levels of activity. METHODS: In this pilot study, we recruited 30 children, aged 6 to 11 years, to wear a smartwatch with the LemurDx app for 2 days. Parents also provided activity labels for 30-minute intervals to help train the algorithm. Half of the participants had ADHD combined presentation or predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation (n=15), and half were in the healthy control group (n=15). RESULTS: The results indicated high usability scores and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 0.89 (sensitivity=0.93; specificity=0.86) when the motion sensor output was paired with the activity labels. CONCLUSIONS: State-of-the-art sensors and machine learning may provide a promising avenue for the objective measurement of hyperactivity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".