MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401160603 · doi:10.3390/app14156700

Machine Learning-Based Stroke Patient Rehabilitation Stage Classification Using Kinect Data

2024· article· en· W4401160603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tasfia Tahsin, Khondoker Mirazul Mumenin, Humayra Akter, Jun Jiat Tiang, Abdullah-Al Nahid

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHyperparameterPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)GestureMachine learningPhysical therapyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Everyone aspires to live a healthy life, but many will inevitably experience some form of disease, illness, or accident that results in disability at some point. Rehabilitation plays a crucial role in helping individuals recover from these disabilities and return to their daily activities. Traditional rehabilitation methods are often expensive, are inefficient, and lead to slow progress for patients. However, in this era of technology, various sensor-based automatic rehabilitation is also possible. A Kinect sensor is a skeletal tracking device that captures human motions and gestures. It can provide feedback to the users, allowing them to better understand their progress and adjust their movements accordingly. In this study, stroke-based rehabilitation is presented along with the Toronto Rehab Stroke Pose Dataset (TRSP). Pre-processing of the raw dataset was performed using various features, and several state-of-the-art classifiers were applied to evaluate the data provided by the Kinect sensor. Among the various classifiers, eXtreme Gradient Boosing (XGB) attained the maximum accuracy of 92% for the TRSP dataset. Furthermore, hyperparameters of the XGB have been optimized using a metaheuristic gray wolf optimizer for better performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207