Quantitative evaluation method of stroke association based on multidimensional gait parameters by using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: NIHSS for stroke is widely used in clinical, but it is complex and subjective. The purpose of the study is to present a quantitative evaluation method of stroke association based on multi-dimensional gait parameters by using machine learning. Methods: 39 ischemic stroke patients with hemiplegia were selected as the stroke group and 187 healthy adults from the community as the control group. Gaitboter system was used for gait analysis. Through the labeling of stroke patients by clinicians with NIHSS score, all gait parameters obtained were used to select appropriate gait parameters. By using machine learning algorithm, a discriminant model and a hierarchical model were trained. Results: The discriminant model was used to distinguish between healthy people and stroke patients. The overall detection accuracy of the model based on KNN, SVM and Randomforest algorithms is 92.86, 92.86 and 90.00%, respectively. The hierarchical model was used to judge the severity of stroke in stroke patients. The model based on Randomforest, SVM and AdaBoost algorithm had an overall detection accuracy of 71.43, 85.71 and 85.71%, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed stroke association quantitative evaluation method based on multi-dimensional gait parameters has the characteristics of high accuracy, objectivity, and quantification.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".