ArticleiScience2024
Assessing the impact of body location on the accuracy of detecting daily activities with accelerometer data.
Article in iScience, 2024. 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.
- A comprehensive IMU dataset for evaluating sensor layouts in human activity and intensity recognition.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Analyzing Optimal Wearable Motion Sensor Placement for Accurate Classification of Fall Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advancements in digital biomarkers have highlighted the importance of accelerometer and gyroscope data for monitoring activities, identifying motion-related diseases, and assessing disease severity. Prior studies predominantly limit sensor placement to one or two locations. Here, we conducted a trial focusing on the impact of sensor placement in predicting 21 common activities using convolutional neural networks (CNN) and long short-term memory networks (LSTM). Our research found that the optimal locations for activity detection are the right and left upper arms, right wrist, and lower back. These locations yielded an average AUC of 0.76-0.77 using both accelerometer and gyroscope data. Combining data from all locations improved AUC to 0.796 for accelerometer and 0.811 for gyroscope data. We also noted specific activity-body part sensitivity relationships. This study provides a valuable reference for selecting appropriate sensor locations in future digital biomarker studies focused on specific activities.
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.