Unobtrusive Nighttime Movement Monitoring to Support Nursing Home Continence Care: Algorithm Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rising prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) among older adults, particularly those living in nursing homes (NHs), underscores the need for innovative continence care solutions. The implementation of an unobtrusive sensor system may support nighttime monitoring of NH residents' movements and, more specifically, the agitation possibly associated with voiding events. Objective: This study aims to explore the application of an unobtrusive sensor system to monitor nighttime movement, integrated into a care bed with accelerometer sensors connected to a pressure-redistributing care mattress. Methods: A total of 6 participants followed a 7-step protocol. The obtained dataset was segmented into 20-second windows with a 50% overlap. Each window was labeled with 1 of the 4 chosen activity classes: in bed, agitation, turn, and out of bed. A total of 1416 features were selected and analyzed with an XGBoost algorithm. At last, the model was validated using leave one subject out cross-validation (LOSOCV). Results: The trained model attained a trustworthy overall F1-score of 79.56% for all classes and, more specifically, an F1-score of 79.67% for the class "Agitation." Conclusions: The results from this study provide promising insights in unobtrusive nighttime movement monitoring. The study underscores the potential to enhance the quality of care for NH residents through a machine learning model based on data from accelerometers connected to a viscoelastic care mattress, thereby driving progress in the field of continence care and artificial intelligence-supported health care for older adults.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".