MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407369415 · doi:10.3390/s25041083

High-Knee-Flexion Posture Recognition Using Multi-Dimensional Dynamic Time Warping on Inertial Sensor Data

2025· article· en· W4407369415 on OpenAlexafffund
Annemarie F. Laudanski, Arne Küderle, Felix Kluge, Bjoern M. Eskofier, Stacey M. Acker

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSquatting positionInertial measurement unitDynamic time warpingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGaitActivity recognitionKnee flexionSTRIDEScale (ratio)Gait analysisAccelerometerComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPattern recognition (psychology)Physical therapyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relating continuously collected inertial data to the activities or postures performed by the sensor wearer requires pattern recognition or machine-learning-based algorithms, accounting for the temporal and scale variability present in human movements. The objective of this study was to develop a sensor-based framework for the detection and measurement of high-flexion postures frequently adopted in occupational settings. IMU-based joint angle estimates for the ankle, knee, and hip were time and scale normalized prior to being input to a multi-dimensional Dynamic Time Warping (mDTW) distance-based Nearest Neighbour algorithm for the identification of twelve postures. Data from 50 participants were divided to develop and evaluate the mDTW model. Overall accuracies of 82.3% and 55.6% were reached when classifying movements from the testing and validation datasets, respectively, which increased to 86% and 74.6% when adjusting for imbalances between classification groups. The highest misclassification rates occurred between flatfoot squatting, heels-up squatting, and stooping, while the model was incapable of identifying sequences of walking based on a single stride template. The developed mDTW model proved robust in identifying high-flexion postures performed by participants both included and precluded from algorithm development, indicating its strong potential for the quantitative measurement of postural adoption in real-world settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensors→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→