A Smartphone-Based Algorithm for L Test Subtask Segmentation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Subtask segmentation can provide useful information from clinical tests, allowing clinicians to better assess a patient’s mobility status. A new smartphone-based algorithm was developed to segment the L Test of functional mobility into stand-up, sit-down, and turn subtasks. Methods: Twenty-one able-bodied participants each completed five L Test trials, with a smartphone attached to their posterior pelvis. The smartphone used a custom-designed application that collected linear acceleration, gyroscope, and magnetometer data, which were then put into a threshold-based algorithm for subtask segmentation. Results: The algorithm produced good results (>97% accuracy, >98% specificity, >74% sensitivity) for all subtasks. Conclusions: These results were a substantial improvement compared with previously published results for the L Test, as well as similar functional mobility tests. This smartphone-based approach is an accessible method for providing useful metrics from the L Test that can lead to better clinical decision-making.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it