ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Toward the Personalization of Biceps Fatigue Detection Model for Gym Activity: An Approach to Utilize Wearables' Data from the Crowd.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Data-Driven Approach for Upper Limb Fatigue Estimation Based on Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nowadays, wearables-based Human Activity Recognition (HAR) systems represent a modern, robust, and lightweight solution to monitor athlete performance. However, user data variability is a problem that may hinder the performance of HAR systems, especially the cross-subject HAR models. Such a problem may have a lesser effect on the subject-specific model because it is a tailored model that serves a specific user; hence, data variability is usually low, and performance is often high. However, such a performance comes with a high cost in data collection and processing per user. Therefore, in this work, we present a personalized model that achieves higher performance than the cross-subject model while maintaining a lower data cost than the subject-specific model. Our personalization approach sources data from the crowd based on similarity scores computed between the test subject and the individuals in the crowd. Our dataset consists of 3750 concentration curl repetitions from 25 volunteers with ages and BMI ranging between 20-46 and 24-46, respectively. We compute 11 hand-crafted features and train 2 personalized AdaBoost models, Decision Tree (AdaBoost-DT) and Artificial Neural Networks (AdaBoost-ANN), using data from whom the test subject shares similar physical and single traits. Our findings show that the AdaBoost-DT model outperforms the cross-subject-DT model by 5.89%, while the AdaBoost-ANN model outperforms the cross-subject-ANN model by 3.38%. On the other hand, at 50.0% less of the test subject's data consumption, our AdaBoost-DT model outperforms the subject-specific-DT model by 16%, while the AdaBoost-ANN model outperforms the subject-specific-ANN model by 10.33%. Yet, the subject-specific models achieve the best performances at 100% of the test subjects' data consumption.
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.