Towards a Visualizable, De-identified Synthetic Biomarker of Human Movement Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human motion analysis has been a common thread across modern and early medicine. While medicine evolves, analysis of movement disorders is mostly based on clinical presentation and trained observers making subjective assessments using clinical rating scales. Currently, the field of computer vision has seen exponential growth and successful medical applications. While this has been the case, neurology, for the most part, has not embraced digital movement analysis. There are many reasons for this including: the limited size of labeled datasets, accuracy and nontransparent nature of neural networks, and potential legal and ethical concerns. We hypothesize that a number of opportunities are made available by advancements in computer vision that will enable digitization of human form, movements, and will represent them synthetically in 3D. Representing human movements within synthetic body models will potentially pave the way towards objective standardized digital movement disorder diagnosis and building sharable open-source datasets from such processed videos. We provide a perspective of this emerging field and describe how clinicians and computer scientists can navigate this new space. Such digital movement capturing methods will be important for both machine learning-based diagnosis and computer vision-aided clinical assessment. It would also supplement face-to-face clinical visits and be used for longitudinal monitoring and remote diagnosis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".