MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391576879 · doi:10.3390/s24041056

Automatic Radar-Based Step Length Measurement in the Home for Older Adults Living with Frailty

2024· article· en· W4391576879 on OpenAlexaff
Parthipan Siva, Alexander Wong, Patricia Hewston, George Ioannidis, Jonathan D. Adachi, Alexander Rabinovich, Andrea W Lee, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesSt. Peter's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarPopulationGaitComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an aging population, numerous assistive and monitoring technologies are under development to enable older adults to age in place. To facilitate aging in place, predicting risk factors such as falls and hospitalization and providing early interventions are important. Much of the work on ambient monitoring for risk prediction has centered on gait speed analysis, utilizing privacy-preserving sensors like radar. Despite compelling evidence that monitoring step length in addition to gait speed is crucial for predicting risk, radar-based methods have not explored step length measurement in the home. Furthermore, laboratory experiments on step length measurement using radars are limited to proof-of-concept studies with few healthy subjects. To address this gap, a radar-based step length measurement system for the home is proposed based on detection and tracking using a radar point cloud followed by Doppler speed profiling of the torso to obtain step lengths in the home. The proposed method was evaluated in a clinical environment involving 35 frail older adults to establish its validity. Additionally, the method was assessed in people's homes, with 21 frail older adults who had participated in the clinical assessment. The proposed radar-based step length measurement method was compared to the gold-standard Zeno Walkway Gait Analysis System, revealing a 4.5 cm/8.3% error in a clinical setting. Furthermore, it exhibited excellent reliability (ICC(2,k) = 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96) in uncontrolled home settings. The method also proved accurate in uncontrolled home settings, as indicated by a strong consistency (ICC(3,k) = 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92)) between home measurements and in-clinic assessments.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207