MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413120857 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3596942

Vision-Based Fall Risk Assessment Through Attention Augmented Neural Encoding and Data Augmentation

2025· article· en· W4413120857 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Miao, Qing Zhang, Boting Qu, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceEncoding (memory)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceRisk assessmentMachine learningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falls among elderly individuals and other at-risk populations represent a significant public health concern, underscoring the need for proactive and accessible fall risk assessment methods. Although prior systems using wearable sensors or depth cameras have demonstrated potential, their widespread adoption is often constrained by user discomfort, setup complexity, and the high cost of specialized equipment such as Kinect. To address these limitations, we propose GTAE-FRA, a novel vision-based deep learning framework for fall risk assessment that leverages standard, widely available RGB cameras to record Five times Sit-To-Stand (FSTS) test videos. GTAE-FRA begins with a robust video processing pipeline that includes 3D pose estimation, noise filtering, and Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)-based matching to extract reliable Body Skeleton Key Point (BSKP) sequences. These sequences are then fed into GTrans, an attention-augmented encoder combining message passing aggregation mechanism with Transformer-based spatial-temporal modeling for nuanced feature extraction. To overcome limited data availability, six skeleton-oriented data augmentation strategies are applied, which significantly enhance the diversity and robustness of training samples. Experimental results on a dataset of 450 FSTS videos demonstrate the effectiveness of GTAE-FRA, achieving impressive performance with detection accuracy, weighted F1 score, macro F1 score, and AUC of 87.00%, 87.01%, 88.92%, and 97.96%, respectively. These results represent average improvements of 2.49%, 2.66%, 2.24% and 1.78% over baseline methods across the respective metrics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207