MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390495275 · doi:10.1186/s12938-023-01196-7

Effect of test duration and sensor location on the reliability of standing balance parameters derived using body-mounted accelerometers

2024· article· en· W4390495275 on OpenAlexafffund
Vahid Abdollah, Alireza Noamani, John D. Ralston, Chester Ho, Hossein Rouhani

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMedical Engineering OnLine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersMitacs
KeywordsAccelerometerReliability (semiconductor)Duration (music)Balance (ability)Test (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationComputer scienceMedicineAcousticsPhysicsBiologyPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Balance parameters derived from wearable sensor measurements during postural sway have been shown to be sensitive to experimental variables such as test duration, sensor number, and sensor location that influence the magnitude and frequency-related properties of measured center-of-mass (COM) and center-of-pressure (COP) excursions. In this study, we investigated the effects of test duration, the number of sensors, and sensor location on the reliability of standing balance parameters derived using body-mounted accelerometers. METHODS: Twelve volunteers without any prior history of balance disorders were enrolled in the study. They were asked to perform two 2-min quiet standing tests with two different testing conditions (eyes open and eyes closed). Five inertial measurement units (IMUs) were employed to capture postural sway data from each participant. IMUs were attached to the participants' right legs, the second sacral vertebra, sternum, and the left mastoid processes. Balance parameters of interest were calculated for the single head, sternum, and sacrum accelerometers, as well as, a three-sensor combination (leg, sacrum, and sternum). Accelerometer data were used to estimate COP-based and COM-based balance parameters during quiet standing. To examine the effect of test duration and sensor location, each 120-s recording from different sensor locations was segmented into 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-, 70-, 80-, 90-, 100-, and 110-s intervals. For each of these time intervals, time- and frequency-domain balance parameters were calculated for all sensor locations. RESULTS: Most COM-based and COP-based balance parameters could be derived reliably for clinical applications (Intraclass-Correlation Coefficient, ICC ≥ 0.90) with a minimum test duration of 70 and 110 s, respectively. The exceptions were COP-based parameters obtained using a sacrum-mounted sensor, especially in the eyes-closed condition, which could not be reliably used for clinical applications even with a 120-s test duration. CONCLUSIONS: Most standing balance parameters can be reliably measured using a single head- or sternum-mounted sensor within a 120-s test duration. For other sensor locations, the minimum test duration may be longer and may depend on the specific test conditions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMedical Engineering OnLineSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207