ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
L Test Subtask Segmentation for Lower-Limb Amputees Using a Random Forest Algorithm.
Article in Sensors (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.
- L Test Subtask Segmentation for Lower-Limb Amputees Using a Random Forest Algorithm.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional mobility tests, such as the L test of functional mobility, are recommended to provide clinicians with information regarding the mobility progress of lower-limb amputees. Smartphone inertial sensors have been used to perform subtask segmentation on functional mobility tests, providing further clinically useful measures such as fall risk. However, L test subtask segmentation rule-based algorithms developed for able-bodied individuals have not produced sufficiently acceptable results when tested with lower-limb amputee data. In this paper, a random forest machine learning model was trained to segment subtasks of the L test for application to lower-limb amputees. The model was trained with 105 trials completed by able-bodied participants and 25 trials completed by lower-limb amputee participants and tested using a leave-one-out method with lower-limb amputees. This algorithm successfully classified subtasks within a one-foot strike for most lower-limb amputee participants. The algorithm produced acceptable results to enhance clinician understanding of a person's mobility status (>85% accuracy, >75% sensitivity, >95% specificity).
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.