ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Investigating the Impact of Information Sharing in Human Activity Recognition.
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.
- Language patterns in Japanese patients with Alzheimer disease: A machine learning approach.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accuracy of Human Activity Recognition is noticeably affected by the orientation of smartphones during data collection. This study utilized a public domain dataset that was specifically collected to include variations in smartphone positioning. Although the dataset contained records from various sensors, only accelerometer data were used in this study; thus, the developed methodology would preserve smartphone battery and incur low computation costs. A total of 175 different features were extracted from the pre-processed data. Data stratification was conducted in three ways to investigate the effect of information sharing between the training and testing datasets. After data balancing using only the training dataset, ten-fold and LOSO cross-validation were performed using several algorithms, including Support Vector Machine, XGBoost, Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, KNN, and Neural Network. A very simple post-processing algorithm was developed to improve the accuracy. The results reveal that XGBoost takes the least computation time while providing high prediction accuracy. Although Neural Network outperforms XGBoost, XGBoost demonstrates better accuracy with post-processing. The final detection accuracy ranges from 99.8% to 77.6% depending on the level of information sharing. This strongly suggests that when reporting accuracy values, the associated information sharing levels should be provided as well in order to allow the results to be interpreted in the correct context.
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.