MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213417251 · doi:10.3390/s22051749

Amputee Fall Risk Classification Using Machine Learning and Smartphone Sensor Data from 2-Minute and 6-Minute Walk Tests

2022· article· en· W4213417251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pascale Juneau, Natalie Baddour, Helena Burger, Andrej Bavec, Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSmartphone applicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningHuman–computer interactionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationEmbedded systemMedicineMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is commonly used to assess a person’s physical mobility and aerobic capacity. However, richer knowledge can be extracted from movement assessments using artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as fall risk status. The 2-min walk test (2MWT) is an alternate assessment for people with reduced mobility who cannot complete the full 6MWT, including some people with lower limb amputations; therefore, this research investigated automated foot strike (FS) detection and fall risk classification using data from a 2MWT. A long short-term memory (LSTM) model was used for automated foot strike detection using retrospective data (n = 80) collected with the Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Centre (TOHRC) Walk Test app during a 6-min walk test (6MWT). To identify FS, an LSTM was trained on the entire six minutes of data, then re-trained on the first two minutes of data. The validation set for both models was ground truth FS labels from the first two minutes of data. FS identification with the 6-min model had 99.2% accuracy, 91.7% sensitivity, 99.4% specificity, and 82.7% precision. The 2-min model achieved 98.0% accuracy, 65.0% sensitivity, 99.1% specificity, and 68.6% precision. To classify fall risk, a random forest model was trained on step-based features calculated using manually labeled FS and automated FS identified from the first two minutes of data. Automated FS from the first two minutes of data correctly classified fall risk for 61 of 80 (76.3%) participants; however, <50% of participants who fell within the past six months were correctly classified. This research evaluated a novel method for automated foot strike identification in lower limb amputee populations that can be applied to both 6MWT and 2MWT data to calculate stride parameters. Features calculated using automated FS from two minutes of data could not sufficiently classify fall risk in lower limb amputees.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207