In-Bed Posture Classification Using Deep Neural Network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-bed posture monitoring has become a prevalent area of research to help minimize the risk of pressure sore development and to increase sleep quality. This paper proposed 2D and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks, which are trained on images and videos of an open-access dataset consisting of 13 subjects' body heat maps captured from a pressure mat in 17 positions, respectively. The main goal of this paper is to detect the three main body positions: supine, left, and right. We compare the use of image and video data through 2D and 3D models in our classification. Since the dataset was imbalanced, three strategies were evaluated, i.e., down sampling, over sampling, and class weights. The best 3D model achieved accuracies of 98.90 ± 1.05% and 97.80 ± 2.14% for 5-fold and leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) cross validations, respectively. To compare the 3D model with 2D, four pre-trained 2D models were evaluated, where the best-performing model was the ResNet-18 with accuracies of 99.97 ± 0.03% for 5-fold and 99.62 ± 0.37% for LOSO. The proposed 2D and 3D models provided promising results for in-bed posture recognition and can be used in the future to further distinguish postures into more detailed subclasses. The outcome of this study can be used to remind caregivers at hospitals and long-term care facilitiesto reposition their patients if they do not reposition themselves naturally to prevent pressure ulcers. In addition, the evaluation of body postures and movements during sleep can help caregivers understand sleep quality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it