MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408619656 · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2025.03.039

Transfer Learning using Computer Vision Models for Fall Detection from UWB Radars

2025· article· en· W4408619656 on OpenAlexaff
Shadi Abudalfa, Kévin Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research procedia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfer of learningComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSimulationHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting when a person falls poses a substantial challenge to researchers because of the risk of serious injuries like femoral neck fractures, brain hemorrhages, or burns, which can lead to significant discomfort and, in some cases, worsen over time, resulting in complications or even fatalities. The effectiveness of fall detection is linked to promptly alerting caregivers, such as nurses, upon detecting a fall. In our study, we present a technique for identifying falls within a 40-square-meter apartment using data collected from three ultra-wideband radars. Our approach integrates pre-trained computer vision models (ResNet, VGG, and AlexNet) for fall detection, which is a binary classification task aimed at distinguishing between fall and non-fall events. To refine the model’s performance, we utilize data representing various fall scenarios simulated by 10 participants across three locations within the apartment. We evaluate the performance of the presented technique by using the leave-one-subject-out strategy. The results consistently demonstrate the superior performance of the ResNet model compared to the VGG and AlexNet models. Notably, our findings indicate an approximate 95% F1 score in fall detection, suggesting promising prospects for real-world deployment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation research procediaSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207