Detecting Patient Position Using Bed-Reaction Forces for Pressure Injury Prevention and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key best practice to prevent and treat pressure injuries (PIs) is to ensure at-risk individuals are repositioned regularly. Our team designed a non-contact position detection system that predicts an individual's position in bed using data from load cells under the bed legs. The system was originally designed to predict the individual's position as left-side lying, right-side lying, or supine. Our previous work suggested that a higher precision for detecting position (classifying more than three positions) may be needed to determine whether key bony prominences on the pelvis at high risk of PIs have been off-loaded. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of categorizing participant position with higher precision using the system prediction F1 score. Data from 18 participants was collected from four load cells placed under the bed legs and a pelvis-mounted inertial measurement unit while the participants assumed 21 positions. The data was used to train classifiers to predict the participants' transverse pelvic angle using three different position bin sizes (45°, ~30°, and 15°). A leave-one-participant-out cross validation approach was used to evaluate classifier performance for each bin size. Results indicated that our prediction F1 score dropped as the position category precision was increased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".