MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of minimum segment models for the estimation of centre of mass position and velocity for slip recovery during a bathtub transfer task

2024· article· en· W4391177776 on OpenAlexafffund
Mackenzie Collins, Iris C. Levine, Philippa Gosine, Roger E. Montgomery, Konika Nirmalanathan, Alison C. Novak

Bibliographic record

VenueGait & Posture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Colleges and Universities
KeywordsBathtubKinematicsMean squared errorSimulationDisplacement (psychology)MathematicsImpulse (physics)Motion captureGeodesyStatisticsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMotion (physics)GeologyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceMaterials sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exploring the use of minimum marker sets is important for balancing the technical quality of motion capture with challenging data collection environments and protocols. While minimum marker sets have been demonstrated to be appropriate for evaluation of some motion patterns, there is limited evidence to support model choices for abrupt, asymmetrical, non-cyclic motion such as balance disturbance during a bathtub exit task. RESEARCH QUESTION: How effective are six models of reduced complexity for the estimation of centre of mass (COM) displacement and velocity, relative to a full-body model. METHODS: Eight participants completed a bathtub exit task. Participants received a balance perturbation as they crossed the bathtub rim, stepping from a soapy wet bathtub to a dry floor. Six reduced models were developed from the full, 72-marker, 12 segment 3D kinematic data set. Peak displacement and velocity of the body COM, and RMSE (relative to the full-body model) for displacement and velocity of the body COM were determined for each model. RESULTS: Main effects were observed for peak right, left, anterior, posterior, upwards and downwards motion, and peak left, anterior, posterior, upwards and downwards velocity. Time-varying (RMSE) was smaller for models including the thighs than models not containing the thighs. In contrast, inclusion of upper arm, forearm, and hand segments did not improve model performance. The model containing the sacrum marker only consistently performed the worst across peak and RMSE metrics. SIGNIFICANCE: Findings suggest a simplified centre of mass model may adequately capture abrupt, asymmetrical, non-cyclic tasks, such as balance disturbance recovery during obstacle crossing. A reduced kinematic model should include the thighs, trunk and pelvis segments, although models that are more complex are recommended, depending on the metrics of interest.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGait & PostureSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207