ArticleScientific reports2025
Human activity recognition algorithms for manual material handling activities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Machine-Learning-Based Fatigue Trend Analysis on IMU Wearable Sensor Data from Construction Site Workers.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human Activity Recognition (HAR) using wearable sensors has prompted substantial interest in recent years due to the availability and low cost of Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). HAR using IMUs can aid both the ergonomic evaluation of the performed activities and, more recently, with the development of exoskeleton technologies, can assist with the selection of precisely tailored assisting strategies. However, there needs to be more research regarding the identification of diverse lifting styles, which requires appropriate datasets and the proper selection of hyperparameters for the employed classification algorithms. This paper offers insight into the effect of sensor placement, number of sensors, time window, classifier complexity, and IMU data types used in the classification of lifting styles. The analyzed classifiers are feedforward neural networks, 1-D convolutional neural networks, and recurrent neural networks, standard architectures in time series classification but offer different classification capabilities and computational complexity. This is of the utmost importance when inference is expected to occur in an embedded platform such as an occupational exoskeleton. It is shown that accurate lifting style detection requires multiple sensors, sufficiently long time windows, and classifier architectures able to leverage the temporal nature of the data since the differences are subtle from a kinematic point of view but significantly impact the possibility of injuries.
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.