Wearable Sensor Systems for Fall Risk Assessment: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fall risk assessment and fall detection are crucial for the prevention of adverse and long-term health outcomes. Wearable sensor systems have been used to assess fall risk and detect falls while providing additional meaningful information regarding gait characteristics. Commonly used wearable systems for this purpose are inertial measurement units (IMUs), which acquire data from accelerometers and gyroscopes. IMUs can be placed at various locations on the body to acquire motion data that can be further analyzed and interpreted. Insole-based devices are wearable systems that were also developed for fall risk assessment and fall detection. Insole-based systems are placed beneath the sole of the foot and typically obtain plantar pressure distribution data. Fall-related parameters have been investigated using inertial sensor-based and insole-based devices include, but are not limited to, center of pressure trajectory, postural stability, plantar pressure distribution and gait characteristics such as cadence, step length, single/double support ratio and stance/swing phase duration. The acquired data from inertial and insole-based systems can undergo various analysis techniques to provide meaningful information regarding an individual's fall risk or fall status. By assessing the merits and limitations of existing systems, future wearable sensors can be improved to allow for more accurate and convenient fall risk assessment. This article reviews inertial sensor-based and insole-based wearable devices that were developed for applications related to falls. This review identifies key points including spatiotemporal parameters, biomechanical gait parameters, physical activities and data analysis methods pertaining to recently developed systems, current challenges, and future perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".