Hearing Aid Accelerometer Based Pedometry Assessment for Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of activity for older adults provides important knowledge about their well-being as declines could be caused by health issues. Reduced activity can lead to poorer health, social isolation, loneliness, and cognitive decline. Many aging adults require hearing aids (HA) and these devices now include accelerometers that could be used as pedometers. In this work, the performance of the hearing aid manufacturer provided pedometer measurements is compared to pedometry from an Actigraph accelerometer while both are used by healthy older adults for 14 days. The results show that the research subjects wore the hearing aids for 10 to 14 hours per day on average providing good compliance. When left and right hearing aids are compared with each other, the pedometer results are consistent. The correlation of the hearing aids to the Actigraph was very high, but the actual step counts recorded varied above and below the Actigraph results showing that the provided hearing aid algorithm provides an indication of activity, but additional improvements should be considered to improve algorithm accuracy.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".