Cited by 67Frailty in Older AdultsBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Postural transitions during activities of daily living could identify frailty status: application of wearable technology to identify frailty during unsupervised condition

Open access
Parvaneh, Saman, Mohler, Jane, Toosizadeh, Nima, Grewal, Gurtej Singh, Najafi, Bijan·2017·Gerontology

Abstract

Background: Impairment of physical function is a major indicator of frailty. Functional performance tests have been shown to be useful for identification of frailty in older adults. However, these tests are often not translatable into unsupervised and remote monitoring of frailty status at home and/or community settings. Objective: In this study, we explored daily postural transition quantified using a chest-worn wearable technology to identify frailty in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Spontaneous daily physical activity was monitored over 24 h in 120 community-dwelling elderly (age: 78 ± 8 years) using an unobtrusive wearable sensor (PAMSys™, BioSensics LLC, Watertown, MA, USA). Participants were classified as non-frail and pre-frail/frail using Fried's criteria. A validated software package was used to identify body postures and postural transition between each independent postural activity such as sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit, stand-to-walk, and walk-to-stand. The transition from walking to sitting was further classified as quick sitting and cautious sitting based on presence/absence of a standing posture pause between sitting and walking. A general linear model univariate test was used for between-group comparison. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the association between sensor-derived parameters and age. Logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictors of frailty. Results: According to Fried's criteria, 63% of participants were pre-frail/frail. The total number of postural transitions, stand-to-walk, and walk-to-stand were, respectively, 25.2, 30.2, and 30.6% lower in the pre-frail/frail group when compared to the non-frail group (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.73-0.79). Furthermore, the ratio of cautious sitting was significantly higher by 6.2% in pre-frail/frail compared to non-frail (p = 0.025, Cohen's d = 0.22). Total number of postural transitions and the ratio of cautious sitting also showed significant negative and positive correlations with age, respectively (r = -0.51 and 0.29, p < 0.05). After applying a logistic regression model, among tested parameters, walk-to-stand (odds ratio [OR] = 0.997 p = 0.013), quick sitting (OR = 1.036, p = 0.05), and age (OR = 1.073, p = 0.016) were recognized as independent variables to identify frailty status. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that daily number of specific postural transitions such as walk-to-stand and quick sitting could be used for monitoring frailty status by unsupervised monitoring of daily physical activity. Further study is warranted to explore whether tracking the daily number of specific postural transitions is also sensitive to track change in the status of frailty over time.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000460292

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Some groups have started identifying wearable sensor features from daily functional tasks that are associated with the overall frailty level of older individuals.

    “Nonetheless, some groups have started considering this by identifying wearable sensor features from daily functional tasks that are associated with the overall frailty level of older individuals (103, 104).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parvaneh, S., Mohler, J., Toosizadeh, N., Grewal, G. S., & Najafi, B.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Gerontology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2017
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
479-487
ISSN
  • 0304-324X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0003
OpenAlex
W2591841663
Cited by
67
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R41AG032748, R42AG032748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
frailty, postural transitions, activities of daily living, wearable sensors, chest-worn sensors, community-dwelling older adults, Fried criteria, pre-frailty, sit-to-stand, physical function, non-intrusive monitoring, physical activity monitoring, predictors of frailty
MeSH terms
Frailty, Wearable Electronic Devices, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Postural Balance, Female, Humans, Male, Movement, Exercise, Geriatric Assessment, Frail Elderly, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Independent Living

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