MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406339168 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315851

Estimating whole-body centre of mass sway during quiet standing with inertial measurement units

2025· article· en· W4406339168 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam H. Foulger, Emma R. Reiter, Calvin Kuo, Mark G. Carpenter, Jean‐Sébastien Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInertial measurement unitBalance (ability)Units of measurementMean squared errorMathematicsForce platformPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineGeodesyStatisticsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our ability to balance upright provides a stable platform to perform daily activities. Balance deficits associated with various clinical conditions may affect activities of daily living, highlighting the importance of quantifying standing balance in ecological environments. Although typically performed in laboratory settings, the growing availability of low-cost inertial measurement units (IMUs) allows the assessment of balance in the real world. However, it is unclear how many IMUs are required to adequately estimate linear displacements of the centre of mass (CoM) at stance widths associated with daily activities. While wearing IMUs on their head, sternum, back, right thigh, right shank, and left shank, 16 participants stood quietly on a force platform in narrow, hip-width, and shoulder-width stances, each for three two-minute trials. Using a multi-segment biomechanical model, we estimated CoM displacements from all possible combinations of the IMUs. We then calculated the correlation between the IMU- and force platform- CoM estimates to determine the minimal number of IMUs needed to estimate CoM sway. Four IMUs were necessary to accurately estimate anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) CoM displacements across stance widths. Using IMUs on the back, right thigh, and both shanks, we found strong correlations between the IMU CoM estimation and the force platform CoM estimation in narrow stance (AP: r = 0.92±0.04, RMSE = 2.39±2.08 mm; ML: r = 0.97±0.02, RMSE = 1.16±0.77 mm), hip-width stance (AP: r = 0.93±0.04, RMSE = 2.00±1.18 mm; ML: r = 0.92±0.06, RMSE = 0.92±0.70 mm), and shoulder-width stance (AP: r = 0.93±0.03, RMSE = 1.95±1.66 mm; ML: r = 0.86±0.13, RMSE = 1.39±1.46 mm). These results indicate that IMUs can be used to estimate CoM displacements during quiet standing and that four IMUs are necessary to do so. Using an algorithm based on a simple biomechanical model, researchers and clinicians can estimate whole-body CoM displacements accurately during unperturbed quiet standing. This approach can improve the ecological validity of standing balance research and opens the possibility for assessing/monitoring patients with standing balance deficits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→