ArticleAnnals of geriatric medicine and research2021
Comparison of Human Interpretation and a Rule-Based Algorithm for Instrumented Sit-to-Stand Test.
Article in Annals of geriatric medicine and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe five times sit-to-stand test (5STS) is one of the most commonly used tests to assess the physical performance of lower extremities. This study assessed the correlation between human interpretation (5STShuman) and a rule-based algorithm (5STSrule) using instrumented 5STS with two sensors.
methodsWe analyzed clinical records of 148 patients who visited the geriatric outpatient clinic of Asan Medical Center between December 2020 and March 2021 and underwent physical performance assessment using the electronic Short Physical Performance Battery (eSPPB) protocol. For STS, time-weight and time-distance curves were constructed using a loadcell and light detection and ranging (LiDAR). We manually assessed the grids of these curves to calculate 5STShuman, while 5STSrule used an empirical rule-based algorithm.
resultsIn the study population, the mean 5STShuman and 5STSrule times, i.e., 12.2±0.4 and 11.4±0.4 seconds, respectively, did not differ significantly (p=0.232). Linear regression analysis showed that 5STShuman and 5STSrule were positively correlated (β=0.99, R2=0.99). The measures also did not differ (p=0.381) in classifying sarcopenia according to the Asian Working Group Society criteria, with C-indices of 0.826 for 5STShuman and 0.820 for 5STSrule.
conclusionAn empirical rule-based algorithm correlated with human-interpreted 5STS and had comparable classification ability for sarcopenia.
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.