Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28783651›Full record

ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2018

Automatic Recognition of Activities of Daily Living Utilizing Insole-Based and Wrist-Worn Wearable Sensors.

Nagaraj Hegde, Matthew Bries, Tracy Swibas, Edward Melanson, Edward Sazonov, Nagaraj Hegde, Matthew Bries, Tracy Swibas, Edward Melanson, Edward Sazonov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AI-Driven Sensing Technology: Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Interdisciplinary perspectives on privacy awareness in lifelogging technology development.Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nagaraj Hegde
Matthew Bries
Tracy Swibas
Edward Melanson
Edward Sazonov
Nagaraj Hegde
Matthew Bries
Tracy Swibas
Edward Melanson
Edward Sazonov

Funding

PILOT STUDY--SUBSTRATE METABOLISM IN EXTREMELY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT INFANTSP30DK048520 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Wendy M Kohrt · 1995 to 2026
$32.6M
Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UL1)UL1TR000154 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2012 to 2013
$20.4M
Measuring free-living energy expenditure using direct calorimetryR01DK091287 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI MELANSON, EDWARD L · 2011 to 2014
$1.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000154NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK048520NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK091287
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic recognition of activities of daily living (ADL) is an important component in understanding of energy balance, quality of life, and other areas of health and well-being. In our previous work, we had proposed an insole-based activity monitor-SmartStep, designed to be socially acceptable and comfortable. The goals of the current study were: first, validation of SmartStep in recognition of a broad set of ADL; second, comparison of the SmartStep to a wrist sensor and testing these in combination; third, evaluation of SmartStep's accuracy in measuring wear noncompliance and a novel activity class (driving); fourth, performing the validation in free living against a well-studied criterion measure (ActivPAL, PAL Technologies); and fifth, quantitative evaluation of the perceived comfort of SmartStep. The activity classification models were developed from a laboratory study consisting of 13 different activities under controlled conditions. Leave-one-out cross validation showed 89% accuracy for the combined SmartStep and wrist sensor, 81% for the SmartStep alone, and 69% for the wrist sensor alone. When household activities were grouped together as one class, SmartStep performed equally well compared to the combination of SmartStep and wrist-worn sensor (90% versus 94%), whereas the accuracy of the wrist sensor increased marginally (73% from 69%). SmartStep achieved 92% accuracy in recognition of nonwear and 82% in recognition of driving. Participants then were studied for a day under free-living conditions. The overall agreement with ActivPAL was 82.5% (compared to 97% for the laboratory study). The SmartStep scored the best on the perceived comfort reported at the end of the study. These results suggest that insole-based activity sensors may present a compelling alternative or companion to commonly used wrist devices.

Indexed as

Wearable Electronic DevicesActivities of Daily LivingAdultEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryReproducibility of ResultsShoesSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedWristYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28783651
PMCPMC12826391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.