Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34063478›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Towards Machine Learning-Based Detection of Running-Induced Fatigue in Real-World Scenarios: Evaluation of IMU Sensor Configurations to Reduce Intrusiveness.

Luca Marotta, Jaap H Buurke, Bert-Jan F van Beijnum, Jasper Reenalda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Luca MarottaRoessingh Research and Development, 7522 AH Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2269-298X
Jaap H BuurkeRoessingh Research and Development, 7522 AH Enschede, The Netherlands.
Bert-Jan F van BeijnumDepartment of Biomedical Signals and Systems, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science (EEMCS), University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.
Jasper ReenaldaRoessingh Research and Development, 7522 AH Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 826304
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physical fatigue is a recurrent problem in running that negatively affects performance and leads to an increased risk of being injured. Identification and management of fatigue helps reducing such negative effects, but is presently commonly based on subjective fatigue measurements. Inertial sensors can record movement data continuously, allowing recording for long durations and extensive amounts of data. Here we aimed to assess if inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to distinguish between fatigue levels during an outdoor run with a machine learning classification algorithm trained on IMU-derived biomechanical features, and what is the optimal configuration to do so. Eight runners ran 13 laps of 400 m on an athletic track at a constant speed with 8 IMUs attached to their body (feet, tibias, thighs, pelvis, and sternum). Three segments were extracted from the run: laps 2-4 (no fatigue condition, Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) = 6.0 ± 0.0); laps 8-10 (mild fatigue condition, RPE = 11.7 ± 2.0); laps 11-13 (heavy fatigue condition, RPE = 14.2 ± 3.0), run directly after a fatiguing protocol (progressive increase of speed until RPE ≥ 16) that followed lap 10. A random forest classification algorithm was trained with selected features from the 400 m moving average of the IMU-derived accelerations, angular velocities, and joint angles. A leave-one-subject-out cross validation was performed to assess the optimal combination of IMU locations to detect fatigue and selected sensor configurations were considered. The left tibia was the most recurrent sensor location, resulting in accuracies ranging between 0.761 (single left tibia location) and 0.905 (all IMU locations). These findings contribute toward a balanced choice between higher accuracy and lower intrusiveness in the development of IMU-based fatigue detection devices in running.

Indexed as

RunningAccelerationBiomechanical PhenomenaFootMachine Learningbiomechanicsfatigue estimationhuman movementIMUmachine learningrunning

Identifiers

PMID34063478
PMCPMC8156769

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.