Cited by 10Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robust Classification of Functional and Nonfunctional Arm Movement after Stroke Using a Single Wrist-Worn Sensor Device

Tran, Tan, Chang, Lin-Ching, Almubark, Ibrahim, Bochniewicz, Elaine M., Shu, Liqi, Lum, Peter S., Dromerick, Alexander·2018·2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)

Abstract

Upper Extremity (UE) rehabilitation is often needed post-stroke. The main goal of UE treatment in stroke survivors is to increase the use of the affected UE in the home and community. However, the effectiveness of UE treatments are difficult to quantify because no objective evaluation of UE use exists. In practice, a clinician rates the patient's ability to perform specific motor tasks associated with functional use in a clinic or the patient self-reports the amount or quality of arm movement for a standard set of activities. Both methods do not objectively measure the performance of the affected UE in the home or community environment, and there is growing evidence that motor performance in the laboratory is a poor proxy for the actual amount of UE use. Using a single wrist-worn sensor (i.e., accelerometry data) and machine learning, we have reported that it is possible to separate UE functional use from nonfunctional movement after stroke. Specifically, we reported that we correctly classified sensor data with an average of 94.80% in controls and 88.38% in stroke subjects in intra-subject test trials, and 91.53% for controls and 70.18% in stroke subjects in inter-subject test trials. In this paper, we employed feature selection techniques and explored different machine learning methods to improve the classification accuracy. Our enhanced methods are robust and reliable, and work in both intra-subject and inter-subject training and testing. Our result showed better accuracy in stroke patients than previously reported with the same dataset. The enhanced models reached an average of 96% accuracy in control subjects and 94% in stroke subjects for intra-subject trials, and an average of 90% accuracy in control subjects and 83% in stroke subjects for the inter-subject trials. The proposed methods provide an inexpensive and feasible way to quantify the UE functional use in home and community. This information can provide guidance for clinical practice in the rehabilitative care of adults recovering from stroke.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/bigdata.2018.8622620

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.03.017 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/TITB.2005.856863 · DOI
  3. 10.1161/01.STR.31.3.662 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.07.039 · DOI
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103135 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.018 · DOI
  7. ordóñez, 2013, Activity recognition using hybrid generative/discriminative models on home environments using binary sensors, Sensors (Basel), 13, 5460, 10.3390/s130505460 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.435 · DOI
  10. harvey, 2007, Performance-Based Measures of Functional Skills: Usefulmess in Clinical Treatment Studies, Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33, 1138, 10.1093/schbul/sbm040 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s00221-005-2350-6 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90130-9 · DOI
  13. 10.1682/JRRD.2003.01.0001 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1983.tb03391.x · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1682/JRRD.2005.04.0075 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jht.2012.06.005 · DOI
  18. pannurat, 2017, Analysis of optimal sensor positions for activity classification and application on a different data collection scenario, Sensors (Basel), 17, 10.3390/s17040774 · DOI
  19. pirttikangas, 2006, Feature selection and activity recognition from wearable sensors, Ubiquitous Computing Systems, 516, 10.1007/11890348_39 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1310/tsr1406-9 · DOI
  21. pujari, 2012, Improving Classification Accuracy by Using Feature Selection and Ensemble Model, International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, 2, 2231
  22. 10.1037/a0017501 · DOI
  23. pedregosa, 2011, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tran, T., Chang, L.-C., Almubark, I., Bochniewicz, E. M., Shu, L., Lum, P. S., & Dromerick, A.
Affiliations
  • Catholic University of America (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-12
Volume
13
Pages
5457-5459
OpenAlex
W2912148940
Cited by
10
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
stroke, upper limb rehabilitation, wrist-worn accelerometry, feature selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review