ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Experimental Study of Long Short-Term Memory and Transformer Models for Fall Detection on Smartwatches.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning for blood glucose prediction: Reproducibility challenges and factors affecting differential performance.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Efficient Fall Detection from Wrist-Worn IMU Signals via Knowledge Distillation: A Lightweight CNN Approach Using the UMAFall Dataset.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Transformer-based deep learning model for predicting fNIRS short-channel signals.Neurophotonics · 2025Article
- Enhancing Real-World Fall Detection Using Commodity Devices: A Systematic Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-Generated Fall Data: Assessing LLMs and Diffusion Model for Wearable Fall Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Decade of Progress in Wearable Sensors for Fall Detection (2015-2024): A Network-Based Visualization Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Falls are the second leading cause of unintentional injury deaths worldwide. While numerous wearable fall detection devices incorporating AI models have been developed, none of them are used successfully in a fall detection application running on commodity-based smartwatches in real time. The system misses some falls, and generates an annoying amount of False Positives for practical use. We have investigated and experimented with an LSTM model for fall detection on a smartwatch. Even though the LSTM model has high accuracy during offline testing, the good performance of offline LSTM models cannot be translated to the equivalence of real-time performance. Transformers, on the other hand, can learn long-sequence data and patterns intrinsic to the data due to their self-attention mechanism. This paper compares three variants of LSTM and two variants of Transformer models for learning fall patterns. We trained all models using fall and activity data from three datasets, and the real-time testing of the model was performed using the SmartFall App. Our findings showed that in the offline training, the CNN-LSTM model was better than the Transformer model for all the datasets. However, the Transformer is a preferable choice for deployment in real-time fall detection applications.
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.