Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29443923›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2018

On the Comparison of Wearable Sensor Data Fusion to a Single Sensor Machine Learning Technique in Fall Detection.

Panagiotis Tsinganos, Athanassios Skodras

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Bedtime Monitoring for Fall Detection and Prevention in Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Elderly Fall Detection Systems: A Literature Survey.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors.

Panagiotis TsinganosDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Patras, 265 04 Patras, Greece. panagiotis.tsinganos@ece.upatras.gr.
Athanassios SkodrasDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Patras, 265 04 Patras, Greece. skodras@ece.upatras.gr.ORCID 0000-0002-3872-4325

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of the ageing global population, researchers and scientists have tried to find solutions to many challenges faced by older people. Falls, the leading cause of injury among elderly, are usually severe enough to require immediate medical attention; thus, their detection is of primary importance. To this effect, many fall detection systems that utilize wearable and ambient sensors have been proposed. In this study, we compare three newly proposed data fusion schemes that have been applied in human activity recognition and fall detection. Furthermore, these algorithms are compared to our recent work regarding fall detection in which only one type of sensor is used. The results show that fusion algorithms differ in their performance, whereas a machine learning strategy should be preferred. In conclusion, the methods presented and the comparison of their performance provide useful insights into the problem of fall detection.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAccidental FallsAlgorithmsHumansWearable Electronic Devicesaccelerometerdata fusionfall detectiongyroscopemHealthsmartphonewearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID29443923
PMCPMC5856082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.