Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42739977›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches to Activity Classification Using IMU Data Collected in a Community-Based Setting.

Hans E Anderson, Robert A Scheidt, Kimberly D Bassindale

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hans E AndersonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-8906
Robert A ScheidtJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2024-5051
Kimberly D BassindaleDepartment of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-2092-2646

Funding

Research Training in Sensorimotor NeurorehabilitationT32HD101395 · NICHD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI HECKMAN, CHARLES · 2021 to 2025
$1.7M
Building a data science workforce to improve the reproducibility of rehabilitation researchR25HD105583 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI David Nelson Kennedy, Sook-Lei Liew · 2022 to 2026
$812k
Addressing arm non-use by encouraging idle-time activity during early recovery from strokeR21HD106132 · NICHD · MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY · PI MCGUIRE, JOHN R, SCHEIDT, ROBERT A. · 2022 to 2023
$428k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD106132NICHD NIH HHS R25 HD105583NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD101395NIH HHS 1R21HD106132-02NIH HHS 5R25HD105583-05NIH HHS 5T32HD101395-05U.S. National Science Foundation CMMI M3X 2426659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) algorithms can be used to extract clinically meaningful information from movement data captured by inertial measurement units (IMUs), but many human activity recognition (HAR) pipelines are developed on large laboratory datasets that may not reflect small, heterogeneous, real-world samples. The purpose of this study is to systematically compare the accuracy of multiple ML models, feature sets (both simple and expanded), class balancing strategies, null and transition period handling techniques, and sensor configurations for recognizing a set of four everyday activities extracted from IMU time series data from an age-diverse population. Six ML classifiers were trained and tested: multilayer perceptron, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, logistic regressor, CatBoost, and gaussian naive bayes. These approaches were used in a pipeline with differing sampling techniques including the synthetic minority oversampling technique or random undersampling, and feature handling steps including principal component analysis or a Select-From-Model metatransformer. Additionally, two deep learning methods, DeepConvLSTM and ResGCNN, were trained and tested. Accuracy, precision, recall, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were compared to a dummy classifier as a benchmark approximation to chance performance. All pipelines performed better than the dummy classifier, with model accuracy ranging between 0.427 and 0.644. This study demonstrated the ability of several ML algorithms to properly recognize a set of functional activities using limited IMU data from both children and adults.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAlgorithmsBayes TheoremBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsHumansMultilayer PerceptronsPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestROC Curveactivity classificationinertial measurement unitsmachine learningmobile healthwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID42739977
PMCPMC13568233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.