Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35068651›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence review2022

Human activity recognition in artificial intelligence framework: a narrative review.

Neha Gupta, Suneet K Gupta, Rajesh K Pathak, Vanita Jain, Parisa Rashidi, Jasjit S Suri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Neha GuptaCSE Department, Bennett University, Greater Noida, UP India.
Suneet K GuptaCSE Department, Bennett University, Greater Noida, UP India.
Rajesh K PathakRawatpura Sarkar University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh India.
Vanita JainBharati Vidyapeeth's College of Engineering, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India.
Parisa RashidiIntelligent Health Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Jasjit S SuriStroke Diagnostic and Monitoring Division, AtheroPointTM, Roseville, CA 95661 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6499-396X

Funding

ADAPT: Autonomous Delirium Monitoring and Adaptive PreventionR01NS120924 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIHORAC, AZRA, RASHIDI, PARISA · 2021 to 2025
$2.9M
Intelligent Intensive Care Unit (I2CU): Pervasive Sensing and Artificial Intelligence for Augmented Clinical Decision-makingR01EB029699 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIHORAC, AZRA, RASHIDI, PARISA · 2021 to 2024
$2.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB029699NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS120924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human activity recognition (HAR) has multifaceted applications due to its worldly usage of acquisition devices such as smartphones, video cameras, and its ability to capture human activity data. While electronic devices and their applications are steadily growing, the advances in Artificial intelligence (AI) have revolutionized the ability to extract deep hidden information for accurate detection and its interpretation. This yields a better understanding of rapidly growing acquisition devices, AI, and applications, the three pillars of HAR under one roof. There are many review articles published on the general characteristics of HAR, a few have compared all the HAR devices at the same time, and few have explored the impact of evolving AI architecture. In our proposed review, a detailed narration on the three pillars of HAR is presented covering the period from 2011 to 2021. Further, the review presents the recommendations for an improved HAR design, its reliability, and stability. Five major findings were: (1) HAR constitutes three major pillars such as devices, AI and applications; (2) HAR has dominated the healthcare industry; (3) Hybrid AI models are in their infancy stage and needs considerable work for providing the stable and reliable design. Further, these trained models need solid prediction, high accuracy, generalization, and finally, meeting the objectives of the applications without bias; (4) little work was observed in abnormality detection during actions; and (5) almost no work has been done in forecasting actions. We conclude that: (a) HAR industry will evolve in terms of the three pillars of electronic devices, applications and the type of AI. (b) AI will provide a powerful impetus to the HAR industry in future. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10462-021-10116-x.

Indexed as

And hybrid modelsDeep learningDevice-freeHuman activity recognitionImagingMachine learningRadio frequency-based identificationSensor-basedVision-based

Identifiers

PMID35068651
PMCPMC8763438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.