ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Optimizing Calibration Procedure to Train a Regression-Based Prediction Model of Actively Generated Lumbar Muscle Moments for Exoskeleton Control.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The risk of low-back pain in manual material handling could potentially be reduced by back-support exoskeletons. Preferably, the level of exoskeleton support relates to the required muscular effort, and therefore should be proportional to the moment generated by trunk muscle activities. To this end, a regression-based prediction model of this moment could be implemented in exoskeleton control. Such a model must be calibrated to each user according to subject-specific musculoskeletal properties and lifting technique variability through several calibration tasks. Given that an extensive calibration limits the practical feasibility of implementing this approach in the workspace, we aimed to optimize the calibration for obtaining appropriate predictive accuracy during work-related tasks, i.e., symmetric lifting from the ground, box stacking, lifting from a shelf, and pulling/pushing. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) of prediction for the extensive calibration was 21.9 nm (9% of peak moment) and increased up to 35.0 nm for limited calibrations. The results suggest that a set of three optimally selected calibration trials suffice to approach the extensive calibration accuracy. An optimal calibration set should cover each extreme of the relevant lifting characteristics, i.e., mass lifted, lifting technique, and lifting velocity. The RMSEs for the optimal calibration sets were below 24.8 nm (10% of peak moment), and not substantially different than that of the extensive calibration.
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.