Optimization of Spatial and Temporal Configuration of a Pressure Sensing Array to Predict Posture and Mobility in Lying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial pressure monitoring systems have been developed to assess conditions at the interface between mattress/cushions of individuals at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Recently, they have been used as a surrogate for prolonged posture and mobility monitoring. However, these systems typically consist of high-resolution sensing arrays, sampling data at more than 1 Hz. This inevitably results in large volumes of data, much of which may be redundant. Our study aimed at evaluating the optimal number of sensors and acquisition frequency that accurately predict posture and mobility during lying. A continuous pressure monitor (ForeSitePT, Xsensor, Calgary, Canada), with 5664 sensors sampling at 1 Hz, was used to assess the interface pressures of healthy volunteers who performed lying postures on two different mattresses (foam and air designs). These data were down sampled in the spatial and temporal domains. For each configuration, pressure parameters were estimated and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) was used to determine their ability in discriminating postural change events. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) was employed to predict static postures. There was a non-linear decline in AUC values for both spatial and temporal down sampling. Results showed a reduction of the AUC for acquisition frequencies lower than 0.3 Hz. For some parameters, e.g., pressure gradient, the lower the sensors number the higher the AUC. Posture prediction showed a similar accuracy of 63-71% and 84-87% when compared to the commercial configuration, on the foam and air mattress, respectively. This study revealed that accurate detection of posture and mobility events can be achieved with a relatively low number of sensors and sampling frequency.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".