Improving Accelerometry-Based Measurement of Functional Use of the Upper Extremity After Stroke: Machine Learning Versus Counts Threshold Method

Author:

Lum Peter S.12ORCID,Shu Liqi3,Bochniewicz Elaine M.1,Tran Tan1,Chang Lin-Ching1,Barth Jessica2ORCID,Dromerick Alexander W.24

Affiliation:

1. The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA

2. MedStar National Rehabilitation Network, Washington, DC, USA

3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

4. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

Background Wrist-worn accelerometry provides objective monitoring of upper-extremity functional use, such as reaching tasks, but also detects nonfunctional movements, leading to ambiguity in monitoring results. Objective Compare machine learning algorithms with standard methods (counts ratio) to improve accuracy in detecting functional activity. Methods Healthy controls and individuals with stroke performed unstructured tasks in a simulated community environment (Test duration = 26 ± 8 minutes) while accelerometry and video were synchronously recorded. Human annotators scored each frame of the video as being functional or nonfunctional activity, providing ground truth. Several machine learning algorithms were developed to separate functional from nonfunctional activity in the accelerometer data. We also calculated the counts ratio, which uses a thresholding scheme to calculate the duration of activity in the paretic limb normalized by the less-affected limb. Results The counts ratio was not significantly correlated with ground truth and had large errors ( r = 0.48; P = .16; average error = 52.7%) because of high levels of nonfunctional movement in the paretic limb. Counts did not increase with increased functional movement. The best-performing intrasubject machine learning algorithm had an accuracy of 92.6% in the paretic limb of stroke patients, and the correlation with ground truth was r = 0.99 ( P < .001; average error = 3.9%). The best intersubject model had an accuracy of 74.2% and a correlation of r =0.81 ( P = .005; average error = 5.2%) with ground truth. Conclusions In our sample, the counts ratio did not accurately reflect functional activity. Machine learning algorithms were more accurate, and future work should focus on the development of a clinical tool.

Funder

US Department of Health and Human Services

Medical Research and Materiel Command

u.s. department of veterans affairs

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3