ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2020
Using Intelligent Personal Annotations to Improve Human Activity Recognition for Movements in Natural Environments.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Survey of Challenges and Opportunities in Sensing and Analytics for Risk Factors of Cardiovascular Disorders.ACM transactions on computing for healthcare · 2021Article
- A Public Domain Dataset for Real-Life Human Activity Recognition Using Smartphone Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personal tracking algorithms for health monitoring are critical for understanding an individual's life-style and personal choices in natural environments (NE). In order to train such tracking algorithms in NE, however, annotated data is needed, particularly when tracking a variety of activities of daily living. These algorithms are often trained in laboratory settings, with expectations that they will perform equally well in NE, which is often not the case; they must be trained on annotated data collected in NE and wearable computers provide opportunities to collect such data, though the process is burdensome. Therefore, we propose an intelligent scoring algorithm that limits the number of user annotation requests through the confidence of predictions generated by the tracking algorithm and automatically annotating data with high confidence. We enhance our scoring algorithm by providing improvements in our tracking algorithm by obtaining context data from nearable sensors. Each specific context of a user bounds the set of activities that can likely occur, which in turn improves the tracking algorithm and confidence. Finally, we propose a hierarchical annotation approach, where repeated use allows us to ask for detailed annotations that differentiate fine-grained differences in ways individuals perform activities. We validate our approach in a diet monitoring case study. We vary the number of annotations requested per day to evaluate model accuracy; we improve accuracy in NE by 8% when restricting requests to 20 per day and improve F1-score of activities by 11% with hierarchical annotations, while discussing implementation, accuracy, and power consumption in real-time use.
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.