Use of Accelerometry for Long Term Monitoring of Stroke Patients
Open accessAbstract
Stroke patients are monitored hourly by physicians and nurses in an attempt to better understand their physical state. To quantify the patients' level of mobility, hourly movement (i.e. motor) assessment scores are performed, which can be taxing and time-consuming for nurses and physicians. In this paper, we attempt to find a correlation between patient motor scores and continuous accelerometer data recorded in subjects who are unilaterally impaired due to stroke. The accelerometers were placed on both upper and lower extremities of four severely unilaterally impaired patients and their movements were recorded continuously for 7 to 14 days. Features that incorporate movement smoothness, strength, and characteristic movement patterns were extracted from the accelerometers using time-frequency analysis. Support vector classifiers were trained with the extracted features to test the ability of the long term accelerometer recordings in predicting dependent and antigravity sides, and significantly above baseline performance was obtained in most instances ([Formula: see text]). Finally, a leave-one-subject-out approach was carried out to assess the generalizability of the proposed methodology, and above baseline performance was obtained in two out of the three tested subjects. The methodology presented in this paper provides a simple, yet effective approach to perform long term motor assessment in neurocritical care patients.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Designing efficient ML-based assessment systems that generalise to new users requires a large number of participants with different and variant degrees of severity.
“In addition, in order to design efficient ML-based assessment systems that generalises to new users a large number of participants should take part with different and variant degrees of severity [43,48,49,69,70], which is not always available and taken into account.”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [70]
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that subjects with different motor-score distributions contributed to model performance and suggests that more data might improve generalization to new subjects. It does not establish that efficient ML-based assessments require a large number of participants spanning different severity levels; that turns a tentative, study-specific observation into a general requirement. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe number of participants varied from 4 stroke patients to 59 stroke patients.
“For the number of participants it varied from 4 SP [70] to 59 SP [71].”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [70]
A single included study used the Oxford Grading Motor-Scale.
“Oxford Grading Motor-Scale (OGM) [81] used in a single study included [70]”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [70]
In study [70], the SVM model achieved 82% accuracy.
“82%”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [70]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- [1]Clark W. M., “ Recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (Alteplase) for ischemic stroke 3 to 5 hours after symptom onset: The ATLANTIS study: A randomized controlled trial,” JAMA, vol. 282, no. 21, pp. 2019– 2026, Dec. 1999. 10591384
- [2]Hermans G. and van den Berghe G., “ Clinical review: Intensive care unit acquired weakness,” Critical Care, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 274, Dec. 2015. 26242743 PMC4526175
- [3]Hislop H. J., Avers D., Brown M., and Daniels L., Daniels Worthingham’s Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination and Performance Testing. St. Louis, MO, USA: Elsevier, 2014.
- [4]Hand P. J., “ Interobserver agreement for the bedside clinical assessment of suspected stroke,” Stroke, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 776– 780, Mar. 2006. 16484609
- [5]Salas R. E. and Gamaldo C. E., “ Adverse effects of sleep deprivation in the ICU,” Crit. Care Clinics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 461– 476, Jul. 2008. 18538195
- [6]Pandharipande P., “ Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness,” New England J. Med., vol. 369, no. 14, pp. 1306– 1316, Oct. 2013. 24088092 PMC3922401
- [7]Verceles A. C. and Hager E. R., “ Use of accelerometry to monitor physical activity in critically ill subjects: A systematic review,” Respiratory Care, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1330– 1336, Sep. 2015. 25852167 PMC4582462
- [8]Raj R., Ussavarungsi K., and Nugent K., “ Accelerometer-based devices can be used to monitor sedation/agitation in the intensive care unit,” J. Crit. Care, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 748– 752, 5 2014. 24973100
- [9]Mattlage A. E., Redlin S. A., Rippee M. A., Abraham M. G., Rymer M. M., and Billinger S. A., “ Use of accelerometers to examine sedentary time on an acute stroke unit,” J. Neurologic Phys. Therapy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 166– 171, Jul. 2015. PMC4470858 26035120
- [10]Kumar D., Gubbi J., Yan B., and Palaniswami M., “ Motor recovery monitoring in post acute stroke patients using wireless accelerometer and cross-correlation,” in Proc. 35th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), Jan. 2013, pp. 6693– 6703. 24111281
- [11]Gubbi J., Rao A. S., Fang K., Yan B., and Palaniswami M., “ Motor recovery monitoring using acceleration measurements in post acute stroke patients,” Biomed. Eng. Online, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 33, Dec. 2013. 23590690 PMC3680216
- [14]Grap M. J., “ Sedation in adults receiving mechanical ventilation: Physiological and comfort outcomes,” Amer. J. Crit. Care, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. e53– e64, 5 2012. 22549581 PMC3703630
- [15]Mannini A. and Sabatini A. M., “ Machine learning methods for classifying human physical activity from on-body accelerometers,” Sensors, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1154– 1175, Feb. 2010. 22205862 PMC3244008
- [16]Attal F., Mohammed S., Dedabrishvili M., Chamroukhi F., Oukhellou L., and Amirat Y., “ Physical human activity recognition using wearable sensors,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 31314– 31338, Dec. 2015. 26690450 PMC4721778
- [17]Mannini A., Intille S. S., Rosenberger M., Sabatini A. M., and Haskell W., “ Activity recognition using a single accelerometer placed at the wrist or ankle,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2193– 2203, Nov. 2013. 23604069 PMC3795931
- [18]Alvarez R., Pulido E., and Sierra D. A., Climbing/Descending Stairs Detection Using Inertial Sensors and Implementing PCA and a SVM Classifier. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2017.
- [19]Schmid M., “ SVM versus MAP on accelerometer data to distinguish among locomotor activities executed at different speeds,” Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, Epub, 2013. PMC3860084 24376469
- [20]Wu L. C., “ Detection of american football head impacts using biomechanical features and support vector machine classification,” Sci. Rep., vol. 8, p. 855, Dec. 2017. 29321637 PMC5762632
- [21]Anguita D., Ghio A., Oneto L., Parra X., and Reyes-Ortiz J. L., “ Human activity recognition on smartphones using a multiclass hardware-friendly support vector machine,” in Proc. Int. Workshop Ambient Assisted Living. New York, NY, USA, Springer, 2012, pp. 216– 223.
- [22]Davoudi A. (2018). “ The intelligent ICU pilot study: Using artificial intelligence technology for autonomous patient monitoring.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10201 · arXiv
- [23]Casale P., Pujol O., and Radeva P., “ Classifying agitation in sedated ICU patients,” in MICCAT Workshop Proc., vol. 2, Nov. 2010.
- [24]Lee S., “ Constructing a Bio-Signal Repository from an Intensive Care Unit for Effective Big-data Analysis: Poster Abstract,” in Proc. 14th ACM Conf. Embedded Netw. Sensor Syst., Nov. 2016, pp. 372– 373.
- [25]Denehy L., “ A physical function test for use in the intensive care unit: Validity, responsiveness, and predictive utility of the physical function ICU test (Scored),” Phys. Therapy, vol. 93, pp. 1636– 1645, Dec. 2013. 23886842
- [26]Fuller J., Granton J., and McConachie I., Handbook ICU Therapy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, Dec. 2014.
- [27]Zhang S., Rowlands A. V., Murray P., and Hurst T. L., “ Physical activity classification using the GENEA wrist-worn accelerometer,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 44, pp. 742– 748, Apr. 2012. 21988935
- [28]Bayle N., “ Movement smoothness differentiates voluntary from parkinsonian bradykinesia,” J. Addiction Res. Therapy, vol. 7, pp. 1– 8, Jan. 2016.
- [29]Beck Y., Herman T., Brozgol M., Giladi N., Mirelman A., and Hausdorff J. M., “ SPARC: A new approach to quantifying gait smoothness in patients with Parkinson s disease,” J. NeuroEng. Rehabil., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 49, Jun. 2018. 29914518 PMC6006701
- [30]Cozens J. A. and Bhakta B. B., “ Measuring movement irregularity in the upper motor neurone syndrome using normalised average rectified jerk,” J. Electromyography Kinesiology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 73– 81, Feb. 2003. 12488089
- [31]Colas F. and Brazdil P., “ Comparison of SVM and Some Older Classification Algorithms in Text Classification Tasks,” in Proc. IFIP Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Theory Pract., vol. 217, 2006, pp. 169– 178.
- [32]Pedregosa F., “ Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” Mach. Learn., vol. 12, pp. 2825– 2830, Oct. 2011.
- [33]Cortes C. and Vapnik V., “ Support-vector Networks,” Mach. Learn., vol. 20, pp. 273– 297, Sep. 1995.
- [35]Ibáñez V., Silva J., and Cauli O., “ A survey on sleep assessment methods,” PeerJ, vol. 6, p. e4849, 5 2018. 29844990 PMC5971842
- [36]van der Kooi A. W., “ Sleep monitoring by actigraphy in short-stay ICU patients,” Crit. Care Nursing Quart., vol. 36, pp. 169– 173, Jun. 2013. 23470702
- [38]Chen K., “ Patient-specific pose estimation in a clinical environmen,” in Proc. Socal Mach. Learn. Symp., Oct. 2017, pp. 1– 9.
- Authors
- Lucas, A., Hermiz, J., Labuzetta, J., Arabadzhi, Y., Karanjia, N., & Gilja, V.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gilja, Vikash
- Venue
- IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 2168-2372 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6588341
- OpenAlex
- W2913602685
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- UCSD ECE Department Startup
- NSF I-Corps
- Dennis Washington Leadership Scholarship
- 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, accelerometry, long-term patient monitoring, motor function assessment, time-frequency analysis, support vector machine classification, motion features, neurocritical care, wearable sensors
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