MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389179167 · doi:10.2196/45307

Prediction of Physical Activity Patterns in Older Patients Rehabilitating After Hip Fracture Surgery: Exploratory Study

2023· article· en· W4389179167 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dieuwke van Dartel, Ying Wang, Johannes H. Hegeman, Miriam Vollenbroek-Hutten

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationHip fracturePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyActivities of daily livingMedicinePsychological interventionOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Building up physical activity is a highly important aspect in an older patient’s rehabilitation process after hip fracture surgery. The patterns of physical activity during rehabilitation are associated with the duration of rehabilitation stay. Predicting physical activity patterns early in the rehabilitation phase can provide patients and health care professionals an early indication of the duration of rehabilitation stay as well as insight into the degree of patients’ recovery for timely adaptive interventions. Objective This study aims to explore the early prediction of physical activity patterns in older patients rehabilitating after hip fracture surgery at a skilled nursing home. Methods The physical activity of patients aged ≥70 years with surgically treated hip fracture was continuously monitored using an accelerometer during rehabilitation at a skilled nursing home. Physical activity patterns were described in our previous study, and the 2 most common patterns were used in this study for pattern prediction: the upward linear pattern (n=15) and the S-shape pattern (n=23). Features from the intensity of physical activity were calculated for time windows with different window sizes of the first 5, 6, 7, and 8 days to assess the early rehabilitation moment in which the patterns could be predicted most accurately. Those features were statistical features, amplitude features, and morphological features. Furthermore, the Barthel Index, Fracture Mobility Score, Functional Ambulation Categories, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score were used as clinical features. With the correlation-based feature selection method, relevant features were selected that were highly correlated with the physical activity patterns and uncorrelated with other features. Multiple classifiers were used: decision trees, discriminant analysis, logistic regression, support vector machines, nearest neighbors, and ensemble classifiers. The performance of the prediction models was assessed by calculating precision, recall, and F1-score (accuracy measure) for each individual physical activity pattern. Furthermore, the overall performance of the prediction model was calculated by calculating the F1-score for all physical activity patterns together. Results The amplitude feature describing the overall intensity of physical activity on the first day of rehabilitation and the morphological features describing the shape of the patterns were selected as relevant features for all time windows. Relevant features extracted from the first 7 days with a cosine k-nearest neighbor model reached the highest overall prediction performance (micro F1-score=1) and a 100% correct classification of the 2 most common physical activity patterns. Conclusions Continuous monitoring of the physical activity of older patients in the first week of hip fracture rehabilitation results in an early physical activity pattern prediction. In the future, continuous physical activity monitoring can offer the possibility to predict the duration of rehabilitation stay, assess the recovery progress during hip fracture rehabilitation, and benefit health care organizations, health care professionals, and patients themselves.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207