MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417130979 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2025.3627208

A Parallel Network Architecture for Automatic Slip Detection Task in Human-Centered Footwear Test

2025· article· W4417130979 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaghayegh Chavoshian, Atena Roshan Fekr

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryConvolutional neural networkSlip (aerodynamics)TransformerArchitectureTask (project management)Classifier (UML)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slips and falls are significant public health concerns, making slip-resistant footwear an essential component of prevention. This study aimed to develop an automated slip detection algorithm, designed to replace human observers in human-centered footwear testing protocols and provide a proof of concept for future real-world assessment. A parallel network architecture was proposed to classify videos into slip and no slip events, consisting of two distinct models: Inflated 3D convolutional neural networks (I3D) and Multiscale Vision Transformer (MViT). The two models operate in parallel, independently processing the input video data to capture diverse temporal and spatial features. To optimize the network, predictions from each model are aggregated by fusing their losses using a weighted averaging mechanism, ensuring a balanced contribution during training. The proposed approach was evaluated using two cross-validation techniques: 5-fold and Leave-One-Subject-Out (LOSO) to assess both overall performance and generalizability across subjects. Our proposed parallel network achieved the highest performance in both cross-validation techniques, with an accuracy of 94.63% ± 1.39% (5-fold) and 93.37% ± 3.02% (LOSO), and an F1 score of 94.33% ± 1.46% (5-fold) and 93.02% ± 2.93% (LOSO) on unseen test data. Notably, it outperformed standalone I3D and MViT models by approximately 7% and 4%, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207