ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2024
Seven Things to Know About Exercise Classification With Inertial Sensing Wearables.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of Gyroscope Integration, Sensor Placement, and Activity Granularity on Human Activity Recognition Performance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating Sparse Inertial Measurement Unit Configurations for Inferring Treadmill Running Motion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advanced biomechanical analytics: Wearable technologies for precision health monitoring in sports performance.Digital healthArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveExercise monitoring with low-cost wearables could improve the efficacy of remote physical-therapy prescriptions by tracking compliance and informing the delivery of tailored feedback. While a multitude of commercial wearables can detect activities of daily life, such as walking and running, they cannot accurately detect physical-therapy exercises. The goal of this study was to build open-source classifiers for remote physical-therapy monitoring and provide insight on how data collection choices may impact classifier performance.
methodsWe trained and evaluated multi-class classifiers using data from 19 healthy adults who performed 37 exercises while wearing 10 inertial measurement units (IMUs) on the chest, pelvis, wrists, thighs, shanks, and feet. We investigated the effect of sensor density, location, type, sampling frequency, output granularity, feature engineering, and training-data size on exercise-classification performance.
resultsExercise groups (n = 10) could be classified with 96% accuracy using a set of 10 IMUs and with 89% accuracy using a single pelvis-worn IMU. Multiple sensor modalities (i.e., accelerometers and gyroscopes), high sampling frequencies, and more data from the same population did not improve model performance, but in the future data from diverse populations and better feature engineering could.
conclusionsGiven the growing demand for exercise monitoring systems, our sensitivity analyses, along with open-source tools and data, should reduce barriers for product developers, who are balancing accuracy with product formfactor, and increase transparency and trust in clinicians and patients.
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.