How do Body Mass Index (BMI) and Gender Affect Time-Up-and-Go Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-Up-and-Go (TUG) is a commonly used clinical test to evaluate an individual's gait and frailty state. By combining TUG data with other knowledge, e.g., nutrition and daily habits, informed decisions can be made to delay the progression of or alleviate chronic diseases, such as Parkinson's. Scheduling TUG tests in clinics requires assisted transportation and appointment. With the increasingly overloaded healthcare system, recent advances in e-Health provide an alternative solution. Research studies suggest that it is feasible to perform tests at home and automate gait analysis using intelligent software to classify frailty levels in a remote setting. This allows more frequent monitoring, and clinical appointments are made only to patients at higher risk or those in need. However, conducting the TUG test at home comes with challenges. In this paper, we discuss these challenges, e.g., cluttered environment, and propose solutions. In addition, we investigate whether Body Mass Index (BMI) and gender can affect gait measurement. Our experimental results demonstrate that some machine learning models perform better and the choice of input parameters plays an important role in the classification accuracy. Our experimental results demonstrate that high BMI can be reflected in an individual's TUG, if a robust machine learning model is deployed, while men and women in general show distinct gait measurements. Based on this finding, different thresholds should be defined when making the frail, pre-frail and healthy assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".