MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290861260 · doi:10.1007/s10439-022-03001-3

On-Field Deployment and Validation for Wearable Devices

2022· review· en· W4290861260 on OpenAlexaff
Calvin Kuo, Declan A. Patton, Tyler F. Rooks, Gregory Tierney, Andrew S. McIntosh, Robert C. Lynall, Amanda O. Esquivel, R.W. Daniel, Thomas W. Kaminski, Jason P. Mihalik, Nate Dau, Jillian E. Urban

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerComputer scienceSoftware deploymentEvent (particle physics)Best practiceField (mathematics)Robustness (evolution)Wearable technologyAcknowledgementAccelerometerAccelerationData scienceHuman–computer interactionSimulationComputer securitySoftware engineeringEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wearable sensors are an important tool in the study of head acceleration events and head impact injuries in sporting and military activities. Recent advances in sensor technology have improved our understanding of head kinematics during on-field activities; however, proper utilization and interpretation of data from wearable devices requires careful implementation of best practices. The objective of this paper is to summarize minimum requirements and best practices for on-field deployment of wearable devices for the measurement of head acceleration events in vivo to ensure data evaluated are representative of real events and limitations are accurately defined. Best practices covered in this document include the definition of a verified head acceleration event, data windowing, video verification, advanced post-processing techniques, and on-field logistics, as determined through review of the literature and expert opinion. Careful use of best practices, with accurate acknowledgement of limitations, will allow research teams to ensure data evaluated is representative of real events, will improve the robustness of head acceleration event exposure studies, and generally improve the quality and validity of research into head impact injuries.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Biomedical EngineeringSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207