ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches to Activity Classification Using IMU Data Collected in a Community-Based Setting.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.