ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Fall-from-Height Detection Using Deep Learning Based on IMU Sensor Data for Accident Prevention at Construction Sites.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Feasibility Analysis of Using Channel State Information (CSI) Acquired from Wi-Fi Routers for Construction Worker Fall Detection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Workers at construction sites are prone to fall-from-height (FFH) accidents. The severity of injury can be represented by the acceleration peak value. In the study, a risk prediction against FFH was made using IMU sensor data for accident prevention at construction sites. Fifteen general working movements (NF: non-fall), five low-hazard-fall movements, (LF), and five high-hazard-FFH movements (HF) were performed by twenty male subjects and a dummy. An IMU sensor was attached to the T7 position of the subject to measure the three-axis acceleration and angular velocity. The peak acceleration value, calculated from the IMU data, was 4 g or less in general work movements and 9 g or more in FFHs. Regression analysis was performed by applying various deep learning models, including 1D-CNN, 2D-CNN, LSTM, and Conv-LSTM, to the risk prediction, and then comparing them in terms of their mean absolute error (MAE) and mean squared error (MSE). The FFH risk level was estimated based on the predicted peak acceleration. The Conv-LSTM model trained by MAE showed the smallest error (MAE: 1.36 g), and the classification with the predicted peak acceleration showed the best accuracy (97.6%). This study successfully predicted the FFH risk levels and could be helpful to reduce fatal injuries at construction sites.
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.