A sensor-based comprehensive objective assessment of motor symptoms in Cerebellar Ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human observer-based assessments of Cerebellar Ataxia (CA) are subjective and are often inadequate to track mild motor symptoms. This study examines the potential use of a comprehensive sensor-based approach for objective evaluation of CA in five domains (speech, upper limb, lower limb, gait and balance) through the instrumented versions of nine bedside neurological tests. A total of twenty-three participants diagnosed with CA to varying degrees and eleven healthy controls were recruited. Data was collected using wearable inertial sensors and Kinect camera. In our study, an optimal feature subset based on feature importance in the Random Forest classifier model demonstrated an impressive performance accuracy of 97% (F1 score = 95.2%) for CA-control discrimination. Our experimental findings also indicate that the Romberg test contributed most, followed by the peripheral tests, while the Gait test contributed least to the classification. Sensor-based approaches, therefore, have the potential to complement existing clinical assessment techniques, offering advantages in terms of consistency, objectivity and informed clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".