MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385409504 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23796111.v1

Deep Learning Methods for Single Camera Based Clinical In-bed Movement Action Recognition

2023· preprint· en· W4385409504 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tamás Karácsony, László A. Jeni, Fernando De La Torre Frade, João Paulo Silva Cunha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine
KeywordsSemiologyArtificial intelligenceAction recognitionComputer sciencePsychologyNeuroscienceEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many clinical applications involve in-bed patient activity monitoring, from intensive care and neuro-critical infirmary, to semiology-based epileptic seizure diagnosis support or sleep monitoring at home, which require accurate recognition of in-bed movement actions from video streams. The major challenges of clinical application arise from the domain gap between common in-the-lab and clinical scenery (e.g. viewpoint, occlusions, out-of-domain actions), the requirement of minimally intrusive monitoring to already existing clinical practices (e.g. non-contact monitoring), and the significantly limited amount of labeled clinical action data available. Focusing on one of the most demanding in-bed clinical scenarios - semiology-based epileptic seizure classification – this review explores the challenges of video-based clinical in-bed monitoring, reviews video-based action recognition trends, monocular 3D MoCap, and semiology-based automated seizure classification approaches. Moreover, provides a guideline to take full advantage of transfer learning for in-bed action recognition for quantified, evidence-based clinical diagnosis support. The review suggests that an approach based on 3D MoCap and skeleton-based action recognition, strongly relying on transfer learning, could be advantageous for these clinical in-bed action recognition problems. However, these still face several challenges, such as spatio-temporal stability, occlusion handling, and robustness before realizing the full potential of this technology for routine clinical usage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207