ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Assessing Upper Limb Function in Breast Cancer Survivors Using Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning in a Free-Living Environment.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The representational bottleneck in rehabilitation AI: from human-cognitive proxies to pathway-based clinical representations.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Trends and Innovations in Wearable Technology for Motor Rehabilitation, Prediction, and Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Data Preprocessing Techniques for AI and Machine Learning Readiness: Scoping Review of Wearable Sensor Data in Cancer Care.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- A data-driven approach to detect upper limb functional use during daily life in breast cancer survivors using wrist-worn sensors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Being able to objectively assess upper limb (UL) dysfunction in breast cancer survivors (BCS) is an emerging issue. This study aims to determine the accuracy of a pre-trained lab-based machine learning model (MLM) to distinguish functional from non-functional arm movements in a home situation in BCS. (2) Methods: Participants performed four daily life activities while wearing two wrist accelerometers and being video recorded. To define UL functioning, video data were annotated and accelerometer data were analyzed using a counts threshold method and an MLM. Prediction accuracy, recall, sensitivity, f1-score, 'total minutes functional activity' and 'percentage functionally active' were considered. (3) Results: Despite a good MLM accuracy (0.77-0.90), recall, and specificity, the f1-score was poor. An overestimation of the 'total minutes functional activity' and 'percentage functionally active' was found by the MLM. Between the video-annotated data and the functional activity determined by the MLM, the mean differences were 0.14% and 0.10% for the left and right side, respectively. For the video-annotated data versus the counts threshold method, the mean differences were 0.27% and 0.24%, respectively. (4) Conclusions: An MLM is a better alternative than the counts threshold method for distinguishing functional from non-functional arm movements. However, the abovementioned wrist accelerometer-based assessment methods overestimate UL functional activity.
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.