SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Daines KJF, Baddour N, Burger H, Bavec A, Lemaire ED. PLoS One 2021; 16(4): e0247574.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, Public Library of Science)

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0247574

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Fall-risk classification is a challenging but necessary task to enable the recommendation of preventative programs for individuals identified at risk for falling. Existing research has primarily focused on older adults, with no predictive fall-risk models for lower limb amputees, despite their greater likelihood of fall-risk than older adults. In this study, 89 amputees with varying degrees of lower limb amputation were asked if they had fallen in the past 6 months. Those who reported at least one fall were considered a fall risk. Each participant performed a 6 minute walk test (6MWT) with an Android smartphone placed in a holder located on the back of the pelvis. A fall-risk classification method was developed using data from sensors within the smartphone. The Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Center Walk Test app captured accelerometer and gyroscope data during the 6MWT. From this data, foot strikes were identified, and 248 features were extracted from the collection of steps. Steps were segmented into turn and straight walking, and four different data sets were created: turn steps, straightaway steps, straightaway and turn steps, and all steps. From these, three feature selection techniques (correlation-based feature selection, relief F, and extra trees classifier ensemble) were used to eliminate redundant or ineffective features. Each feature subset was tested with a random forest classifier and optimized for the best number of trees. The best model used turn data, with three features selected by Correlation-based feature selection (CFS), and used 500 trees in a random forest classifier. The resulting metrics were 81.3% accuracy, 57.2% sensitivity, 94.9% specificity, a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.587, and an F1 score of 0.83. Since the outcomes are comparable to metrics achieved by existing clinical tests, the classifier may be viable for use in clinical practice.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print