L Test Subtask Segmentation for Lower-Limb Amputees Using a Random Forest Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional mobility tests, such as the L test of functional mobility, are recommended to provide clinicians with information regarding the mobility progress of lower-limb amputees. Smartphone inertial sensors have been used to perform subtask segmentation on functional mobility tests, providing further clinically useful measures such as fall risk. However, L test subtask segmentation rule-based algorithms developed for able-bodied individuals have not produced sufficiently acceptable results when tested with lower-limb amputee data. In this paper, a random forest machine learning model was trained to segment subtasks of the L test for application to lower-limb amputees. The model was trained with 105 trials completed by able-bodied participants and 25 trials completed by lower-limb amputee participants and tested using a leave-one-out method with lower-limb amputees. This algorithm successfully classified subtasks within a one-foot strike for most lower-limb amputee participants. The algorithm produced acceptable results to enhance clinician understanding of a person's mobility status (>85% accuracy, >75% sensitivity, >95% specificity).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".