ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Mechanical Method for Rapid Determination of Step Count Sensor Settings.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Aggregation Periods Influence Step Count Error in Low-Power Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increased push for personalized medicine, researchers and clinicians have begun exploring the use of wearable sensors to track patient activity. These sensors typically prioritize device life over robust onboard analysis, which results in lower accuracies in step count, particularly at lower cadences. To optimize the accuracy of activity-monitoring devices, particularly at slower walking speeds, proven methods must be established to identify suitable settings in a controlled and repeatable manner prior to human validation trials. Currently, there are no methods for optimizing these low-power wearable sensor settings prior to human validation, which requires manual counting for in-laboratory participants and is limited by time and the cadences that can be tested. This article proposes a novel method for determining sensor step counting accuracy prior to human validation trials by using a mechanical camshaft actuator that produces continuous steps. Sensor error was identified across a representative subspace of possible sensor setting combinations at cadences ranging from 30 steps/min to 110 steps/min. These true errors were then used to train a multivariate polynomial regression to model errors across all possible setting combinations and cadences. The resulting model predicted errors with an R
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.