ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
The Performance of Post-Fall Detection Using the Cross-Dataset: Feature Vectors, Classifiers and Processing Conditions.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of Normalization and Regularization with Machine Learning Overfitting in Cross-dataset Classification of Deaths Using Transcriptomic and Clinical Data: A Secondary Analysis of Publicly Available Databases.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2026Article
- Article
- Fall-from-Height Detection Using Deep Learning Based on IMU Sensor Data for Accident Prevention at Construction Sites.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Deep Convolutional Neural Network-XGB for Direction and Severity Aware Fall Detection and Activity Recognition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Support Vector Machine Classifiers Show High Generalizability in Automatic Fall Detection in Older Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Hierarchical Approach to Activity Recognition and Fall Detection Using Wavelets and Adaptive Pooling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
In this study, algorithms to detect post-falls were evaluated using the cross-dataset according to feature vectors (time-series and discrete data), classifiers (ANN and SVM), and four different processing conditions (normalization, equalization, increase in the number of training data, and additional training with external data). Three-axis acceleration and angular velocity data were obtained from 30 healthy male subjects by attaching an IMU to the middle of the left and right anterior superior iliac spines (ASIS). Internal and external tests were performed using our lab dataset and SisFall public dataset, respectively. The results showed that ANN and SVM were suitable for the time-series and discrete data, respectively. The classification performance generally decreased, and thus, specific feature vectors from the raw data were necessary when untrained motions were tested using a public dataset. Normalization made SVM and ANN more and less effective, respectively. Equalization increased the sensitivity, even though it did not improve the overall performance. The increase in the number of training data also improved the classification performance. Machine learning was vulnerable to untrained motions, and data of various movements were needed for the training.
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.