Automated Detection of In-Home Activities with Ultra-Wideband Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Canada's population of older adults rises, the need for aging-in-place solutions is growing due to the declining quality of long-term-care homes and long wait times. While the current standards include questionnaire-based assessments for monitoring activities of daily living (ADLs), there is an urgent need for advanced indoor localization technologies that ensure privacy. This study explores the use of Ultra-Wideband (UWB) technology for activity recognition in a mock condo in the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital. UWB systems with built-in Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensors were tested, using anchors set up across the condo and a tag worn by patients. We tested various UWB setups, changed the number of anchors, and varied the tag placement (on the wrist or chest). Wrist-worn tags consistently outperformed chest-worn tags, and the nine-anchor configuration yielded the highest accuracy. Machine learning models were developed to classify activities based on UWB and IMU data. Models that included positional data significantly outperformed those that did not. The Random Forest model with a 4 s data window achieved an accuracy of 94%, compared to 79.2% when positional data were excluded. These findings demonstrate that incorporating positional data with IMU sensors is a promising method for effective remote patient monitoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".