MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Classification of pathological and healthy individuals for computer-aided physical rehabilitation

2023· article· en· W4321020415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivanna Kramer, Raphael Memmesheimer, Dietrich Paulus

Bibliographic record

Venue2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkRehabilitationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Motion (physics)PathologicalPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningPhysical therapyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of computer-aided therapy in physical rehabilitation has significantly grown in recent years. In order to optimize the therapeutic actions based on the patient disease and improve the interaction between the patient and telemedical software, it is important to differentiate the healthy individuals and patients following different chronic diseases or musculoskeletal disorders. In this paper, we propose a deep learning method to classify the trajectory patterns in physical rehabilitation as healthy or pathological. Motion sequences containing joint positions and joint angles are transformed into an image representation, which enables the training of a classification model using a deep 2D Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to infer a health state or a symptom. Our approach was evaluated on two publicly available datasets, the KIMORE [1] dataset for complete body skeleton sequences and the Toronto Rehab Stroke Posture (TRSP) [2] dataset containing upper body skeleton sequences. The current method effectively classifies the healthy and pathological movements and achieves 78.57% of accuracy on KIMORE dataset and 86.20% of accuracy on TRSP data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII)Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207