MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283452450 · doi:10.2196/38689

Detection of Low Back Physiotherapy Exercises With Inertial Sensors and Machine Learning: Algorithm Development and Validation

2022· article· en· W4283452450 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Abdalrahman Alfakir, Colin Arrowsmith, David Burns, Helen Razmjou, Michael Hardisty, Cari Whyne

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHalTechUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAGE-WELL
KeywordsInertial measurement unitRandom forestMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSittingComputer scienceHyperparameterConvolutional neural networkWearable computerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlgorithmPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Physiotherapy is a critical element in the successful conservative management of low back pain (LBP). A gold standard for quantitatively measuring physiotherapy participation is crucial to understanding physiotherapy adherence in managing recovery from LBP. Objective This study aimed to develop and evaluate a system with wearable inertial sensors to objectively detect the performance of unsupervised exercises for LBP comprising movement in multiple planes and sitting postures. Methods A quantitative classification design was used within a machine learning framework to detect exercise performance and posture in a cohort of healthy participants. A set of 8 inertial sensors were placed on the participants, and data were acquired as they performed 7 McKenzie low back exercises and 3 sitting posture positions. Engineered time series features were extracted from the data and used to train 9 models by using a 6-fold cross-validation approach, from which the best 2 models were selected for further study. In addition, a convolutional neural network was trained directly on the time series data. A feature importance analysis was performed to identify sensor locations and channels that contributed the most to the models. Finally, a subset of sensor locations and channels was included in a hyperparameter grid search to identify the optimal sensor configuration and best performing algorithms for exercise and posture classification. The final models were evaluated using the F1 score in a 10-fold cross-validation approach. Results In total, 19 healthy adults with no history of LBP each completed at least one full session of exercises and postures. Random forest and XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) models performed the best out of the initial set of 9 engineered feature models. The optimal hardware configuration was identified as a 3-sensor setup—lower back, left thigh, and right ankle sensors with acceleration, gyroscope, and magnetometer channels. The XGBoost model achieved the highest exercise (F1 score: mean 0.94, SD 0.03) and posture (F1 score: mean 0.90, SD 0.11) classification scores. The convolutional neural network achieved similar results with the same sensor locations, using only the accelerometer and gyroscope channels for exercise classification (F1 score: mean 0.94, SD 0.02) and the accelerometer channel alone for posture classification (F1 score: mean 0.88, SD 0.07). Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential of a 3-sensor lower body wearable solution (eg, smart pants) that can identify exercises in multiple planes and proper sitting postures, which is suitable for the treatment of LBP. This technology has the potential to improve the effectiveness of LBP rehabilitation by facilitating quantitative feedback, early problem diagnosis, and possible remote monitoring.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207