ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of two novel human activity recognition models for typically developing children and children with Cerebral Palsy.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Body position classification using wearable sensors in infants with cerebral palsy.Infant behavior & development · 2026Article
- A novel intelligent hybrid reinforcement learning framework for autonomous decision making in complex health cognitive systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Patterns of habitual physical activity in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (GMFCS I-II).Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Social robots in cognitive and speech rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human Activity Recognition models have potential to contribute to valuable and detailed knowledge of habitual physical activity for typically developing children and children with Cerebral Palsy. The main objective of the present study was to develop and validate two Human Activity Recognition models. One trained on data from typically developing children (n = 63), the second also including data from children with Cerebral Palsy (n = 16), engaging in standardised activities and free play. Our data was collected using accelerometers and ground truth was established with video annotations. Additionally, we aimed to investigate the influence of window settings on model performance. Utilizing the Extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) classifier, twelve sub-models were created, with 1-,3- and 5-seconds windows, with and without overlap. Both Human Activity Recognition models demonstrated excellent predictive capabilities (>92%) for standardised activities for both typically developing and Cerebral Palsy. From all window sizes, the 1-second window performed best for all test groups. Accuracy was slightly lower (>75%) for the Cerebral Palsy test group performing free play activities. The impact of window size and overlap varied depending on activity. In summary both Human Activity Recognition models effectively predict standardised activities, surpassing prior models for typically developing and children with Cerebral Palsy. Notably, the model trained on combined typically developing children and Cerebral Palsy data performed exemplary across all test groups. Researchers should select window settings aligned with their specific research objectives.
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.