ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017
Feature selection for elderly faller classification based on wearable sensors.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enabling Older Adults' Health Self-Management through Self-Report and Visualization-A Systematic Literature Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Pooled it
- Leveraging feature selection for enhanced fall risk prediction in elderly using gait analysis.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- CNN-Based Self-Attention Weight Extraction for Fall Event Prediction Using Balance Test Score.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Empirical Study on Human Movement Classification Using Insole Footwear Sensor System and Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prediction of Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease Using Unilateral and Bilateral Plantar-Pressure Data.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Application Scenarios for Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Care: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Wearables and Deep Learning Classify Fall Risk From Gait in Multiple Sclerosis.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021Article
- Early Detection of Freezing of Gait during Walking Using Inertial Measurement Unit and Plantar Pressure Distribution Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Cancer Classification with a Cost-Sensitive Naive Bayes Stacking Ensemble.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- Classifying sitting, standing, and walking using plantar force data.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Using a Motion Sensor to Categorize Nonspecific Low Back Pain Patients: A Machine Learning Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- A Practical Sensor-Based Methodology for the Quantitative Assessment and Classification of Chronic Non Specific Low Back Patients (NSLBP) in Clinical Settings.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Online compensation detecting for real-time reduction of compensatory motions during reaching: a pilot study with stroke survivors.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Article
- Fall Risk Prediction in Multiple Sclerosis Using Postural Sway Measures: A Machine Learning Approach.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Application of Wearable Inertial Sensors and A New Test Battery for Distinguishing Retrospective Fallers from Non-fallers among Community-dwelling Older People.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Type and Location of Wearable Sensors for Monitoring Falls during Static and Dynamic Tasks in Healthy Elderly: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Concurrent Validity of Postural Sway Measures in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment.Physical & occupational therapy in geriatrics · 2018Article
- Accelerometer-based predictive models of fall risk in older women: a pilot study.NPJ digital medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearable sensors can be used to derive numerous gait pattern features for elderly fall risk and faller classification; however, an appropriate feature set is required to avoid high computational costs and the inclusion of irrelevant features. The objectives of this study were to identify and evaluate smaller feature sets for faller classification from large feature sets derived from wearable accelerometer and pressure-sensing insole gait data.
methodsA convenience sample of 100 older adults (75.5 ± 6.7 years; 76 non-fallers, 24 fallers based on 6 month retrospective fall occurrence) walked 7.62 m while wearing pressure-sensing insoles and tri-axial accelerometers at the head, pelvis, left and right shanks. Feature selection was performed using correlation-based feature selection (CFS), fast correlation based filter (FCBF), and Relief-F algorithms. Faller classification was performed using multi-layer perceptron neural network, naïve Bayesian, and support vector machine classifiers, with 75:25 single stratified holdout and repeated random sampling.
resultsThe best performing model was a support vector machine with 78% accuracy, 26% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 0.36 F1 score, and 0.31 MCC and one posterior pelvis accelerometer input feature (left acceleration standard deviation). The second best model achieved better sensitivity (44%) and used a support vector machine with 74% accuracy, 83% specificity, 0.44 F1 score, and 0.29 MCC. This model had ten input features: maximum, mean and standard deviation posterior acceleration; maximum, mean and standard deviation anterior acceleration; mean superior acceleration; and three impulse features. The best multi-sensor model sensitivity (56%) was achieved using posterior pelvis and both shank accelerometers and a naïve Bayesian classifier. The best single-sensor model sensitivity (41%) was achieved using the posterior pelvis accelerometer and a naïve Bayesian classifier.
conclusionsFeature selection provided models with smaller feature sets and improved faller classification compared to faller classification without feature selection. CFS and FCBF provided the best feature subset (one posterior pelvis accelerometer feature) for faller classification. However, better sensitivity was achieved by the second best model based on a Relief-F feature subset with three pressure-sensing insole features and seven head accelerometer features. Feature selection should be considered as an important step in faller classification using wearable sensors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.