ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Analysis of Inertial Measurement Unit Data for an AI-Based Physical Function Assessment System Using In-Clinic-like Movements.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing objective physical function in patients with cancer is crucial for evaluating their ability to tolerate invasive treatments. Current assessment methods, such as the timed up and go (TUG) test and the short physical performance battery, tend to require additional resources and time, limiting their practicality in routine clinical practice. To address these challenges, we developed a system to assess physical function based on movements observed during clinical consultations and aimed to explore relevant features from inertial measurement unit data collected during those movements. As for the flow of the research, we first collected inertial measurement unit data from 61 patients with cancer while they replicated a series of movements in a consultation room. We then conducted correlation analyses to identify keypoints of focus and developed machine learning models to predict the TUG test outcomes using the extracted features. Regarding results, pelvic velocity variability (PVV) was identified using Lasso regression. A linear regression model using PVV as the input variable achieved a mean absolute error of 1.322 s and a correlation of 0.713 with the measured TUG results during five-fold cross-validation. Higher PVV correlated with shorter TUG test results. These findings provide a foundation for the development of an artificial intelligence-based physical function assessment system that operates without the need for additional resources.
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.