1. Introduction
Falls are common for all ages, but for older people, without any associated conditions (e.g., Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis), the effect of ageing on the motor control system can mean coordination patterns change with age. In turn, this can lead to a propensity to lose balance, resulting in a fall. Deaths due to complications after a fall are the most common cause of death for those aged over 65 [
1,
2]. Around a third of people aged 65 and over, and over half of those aged over 80, fall at least once a year [
3,
4]. In addition to the initial injuries, complications from a fall can have a devastating effect on the quality of life of individuals [
4]. Several studies have shown that functional movement can be improved with appropriate intervention, such as balance and strength training, leading to fewer future falls [
5,
6,
7,
8]. In the UK, falls clinics have been set up to provide this type of care. However, there is no systematic screening for potential fallers. The use of computer-aided diagnosis could make this a possibility, enabling prophylactic intervention. Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [
9] recommend that the way for healthcare professionals to assess falls risk is to routinely ask older people in their care how many times they have fallen in the last 12 months, along with the falls’ context and characteristics. Interestingly, in their 2019 review of these guidelines [
10], NICE suggested that new technologies could enhance fall risk assessment. This study proposes a method which could address this need.
If someone is found to have a history of recurrent falls, the most common method of assessing the physical factors that contribute to falls risk is to carry out a clinical test. Common tests include the short physical performance battery (SPPB) [
11], timed up and go (TUG) [
12], 3 m walk [
13] and five times sit to stand (STS-5) [
14]. All of these tests have been linked to the assessment of falls risk [
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20]. These tests are carried out by trained staff, which presents issues for both throughput and variance between staff [
21].
Previously, efforts have been made to automate clinical tests. Despite its seeming simplicity, the sit-to-stand movement requires the coordination of many elements of the musculoskeletal system, which is essential for activities of daily living. Ward et al. [
14] undertook a 4-year longitudinal study (
n = 755, mean age of 78.1 ± 5.4) that looked at SPPB as a predictor of injurious falls. They concluded that the STS-5 alone was all that was required to assess falls risk. They suggested that a time taken to complete the test of ≥16.7 s for the STS-5 test may be sufficient to identify those at risk of future falls. Tiedemann et al. [
20] also found that the time taken to complete the STS-5 test was an excellent predictor of falls. They found that even a single sit-to-stand could provide a useful indication of falls-risk. Ejupi et al. [
19] used a Kinect camera to record community-dwelling older adults carrying out the STS-5 test. They found that sit-to-stand velocity was a better discriminator of falls risk than the time taken to complete the test. In addition, the STS-5 test is particularly well suited to situations with limited space, such as doctors’ offices. Hence, we have chosen to use this movement in this study.
The studies listed above used time or the derivative of displacement with time to assess fallers. However, this approach provides only a rough test for impairment. More informative data can be obtained by considering the coordination of the joints needed to achieve this movement. Markerless motion capture provides a means of collecting this type of information away from the lab, and it is the method we use here. In addition, we also utilised a deep neural autoencoder, trained in an unsupervised fashion on healthy adults from the KINECAL dataset. This allowed the model to learn a compact representation of what a healthy sit-to-stand looks like. From this model, we were able to develop a unique scale that we used to identify participants labelled as at risk in the KINECAL dataset. KINECAL contains the recordings of 90 individuals undertaking movements used in clinical assessments. KINECAL is labelled to differentiate between age-related decline and falls risk. More details of the labelling scheme are shown in the Data Source section.
This paper presents the following contributions:
A method for objective assessment for falls risk, based on a representational model;
A novel scale of falls risk, which can allow for computer-aided diagnosis of those at risk of falls and track their progress after an intervention;
This is in contrast to classification models, which reduce the choice to a binary choice of faller or non-faller;
We demonstrate the use of this method to identify those at risk of falls from the KINECAL dataset [
22].
This paper is structured as follows:
Section 2 looks at related work, highlighting the motivation for our research.
Section 3 details the methodology.
Section 4 presents the results.
Section 5 provides a discussion of the study. Finally,
Section 6 concludes our research, highlighting limitations and areas for future work.
2. Related Work
The use of machine models for falls risk assessment tends to focus on classification models [
23,
24]. However, this approach insists on a hard cut-off: non-fallers vs. fallers. This may not be the most informative approach, especially the use case of the rehabilitation of those identified as at risk of falls. Therefore, a more useful approach is to use a distance metric relative to a healthy norm. This type of scoring can better aid clinicians in tracking an individual’s falls risk over time. Hence, this is the approach used in the current study.
Outside of falls risk assessment, the use of a distance measure, which relates to an ideal form, has been used by other studies. Anton et al. [
25] used a distance measure derived from dynamic time warping to assess if a particular exercise had been carried out to the required standard during rehabilitation. In a similar way, Gholami et al. [
26] used dynamic time warping in the creation of a distance measure to quantify the degree of dissimilarity between the gait cycle of patients with Multiple Sclerosis and healthy patients of a similar age.
Houmanfar et al. [
27] demonstrated that a model-based approach outperformed distance metrics calculated from manually selected features. They used a Hidden Markov Model. Capecci et al. [
28] also demonstrated that a Hidden Semi-Markov Model outperformed dynamic time warping for monitoring rehabilitation. In both these studies, the author used a distance metric to compare normal populations to the affected population and proposed that this approach proved more useful than a classification model.
Inspired by this work, we also propose the use of a distance measure derived from a machine model—in our case, a deep autoencoder. An autoencoder was selected because while Markov-chain-like models can only model linear relationships, autoencoders can model non-linear ones. The autoencoder was built using long short-term memory (LSTM) units. This selection was motivated by the time series nature of the data.
Initially, we used Euclidean distance, derived from reconstruction error, as a distance measure. However, this metric alone did not prove adequate to separate those at risk of falls from those not at risk of falls. Hence, we developed a unique scoring system which uses the variance between repetitions as a key indicator of fall risk.
The rest of this paper is devoted to demonstrating the use of this method.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Source
The data used in this study are derived from the KINECAL dataset [
22]. In particular, we used the data from the five times sit-to-stand STS-5 test.
KINECAL splits its data into several classes:
Healthy Adults (<65 years, no history of falls in the last 12 months),
Non-Faller (≥65 years, no history of falls in the last 12 months),
Self-reported Faller_s (≥65 years, reported 1 fall, in the last 12 months),
Self-reported-Faller_m (≥65 years, reported >1 fall, in the last 12 months),
Clinically At-Risk (≥65 years identified as impaired by ≥2 clinical tests (see [
22] for detail of the clinical tests used)).
Labelling the data in this way allows for the identification of various sub-sets. Such as those over 65 who have reported multiple falls. Or those over 65 who have not reported a fall. This can be useful when trying to ascertain age-related changes vs. impairment-related changes.
3.2. Calculation of Joint Angles
KINECAL provides 25 three-dimensional joint locations for each frame (
Figure 1 shows a full list). From these data, two-dimensional angles were calculated for each of the anatomical planes (sagittal, frontal and transverse). This provided three values for each joint at each time point. Equation (1) was used to calculate the angle between two vectors (
a and
b), shown in
Figure 2. This represents the angle as the two segments of a limb meeting at a joint.
3.3. Segmentation of Repetitions
Each recording of the STS-5 test contains 5 repetitions.
Figure 3 shows how the right knee angle in the sagittal plane (marked up as KNEERIGHT_a_SP in the Kinecal dataset) changes over the duration of the movement. For each participant, this channel was used in a multi-step segmentation process to extract single repetitions.
The process was as follows: (1)
identify all the valleys in the recording: the valleys in the recording were identified using
argrelextrema method of the scipy signal Python library [
29]; (2)
snip a singlerep: a single repetition was identified as the area between the start and end of a valley (indicated by a red ×, in
Figure 3); (3)
validate the snipped repeat: the start and end angle of the snipped repetitions were compared, and if the angle differed by more than 30 degrees, that repetition was rejected (this captured odd start and end chunks when the recording captured artefacts that are unrelated to the sit-to-stand movement); and (4)
visually inspect the single snipped repetitions: a final visual inspection of each repetition was carried out and any oddities were removed. Resampling and padding.
The time to complete one repetition of the STS-5 movement varied among individuals. Hence, so did the number of recorded frames per repetition (ranging from 54 to 150 frames). The average for a member of the
Healthy Adult class was 80 frames. To provide a standard basis for comparison, each repetition was resampled to 80 frames. The resampling was achieved by Fourier Transform resampling [
30], implemented via the
signal.resample method of the scipy python library [
29]. This process also centred the movement.
Resampled repetitions were padded with a 2 s buffer (60 frames) on either side of the main movement; two example outputs of this process are shown in
Figure 4. The padding helped the autoencoder to learn by providing a lead-in before the movement.
The result was a set of 200 frames by 75 channels (25 joints × 3 planes) time series. To aid training, the samples were normalised using the
normalization function from scikit-learn [
31].
Not all of the 75 channels were used in the final model. The most informative channels were selected using cross-validation. The 16 most informative channels represented the following joints and planes: SPINE_MID, sagittal and frontal; SPINE_SHOULDER, sagittal and frontal; NECK sagittal and frontal; HIP_LEFT sagittal, frontal and trans- verse; HIP_RIGHT sagittal, frontal and transverse; KNEE_LEFT, sagittal and frontal; KNEE_RIGHT, sagittal and frontal.
3.4. Autoencoder
Autoencoders are a class of neural networks which are trained using an unsupervised approach. Autoencoders consist of two parts: an encoder and a decoder. The purpose of the encoder is to compress the input to a latent representation. The decoder then reconstructs the original input from the latent representation. This may sound like a trivial task. However, due to the “bow tie” structure of an autoencoder (
Figure 5), the network is forced to encode the time series into fewer and fewer neurons in the encoding section and then tries to recreate the original signal in the decoder section. During the training process, an autoencoder builds a generalised internal representation of the training data, i.e., a representational model.
The number of layers and the number of LSTM units in each layer were selected using the
GridSearchCV method of scikit-learn [
31]. The structure of the final autoencoder is shown in
Figure 5. The numbers shown in each layer refer to LSTM units.
3.5. Training
The autoencoder was trained to accurately recreate the movements (200 frames by 16 channel time series, defined above) of the Healthy Adults group; the loss metric was the mean square error. The mean square error loss of the validation set was used as a signal of an early stopping method, which stopped training if the validation loss remained constant or rose for 50 consecutive epochs.
The trained model could reconstruct unseen movements from the Healthy Adult group with a low error rate. However, if asked to reconstruct unseen movements from classes with high falls risk (Self-reported Faller_m and Clinically At-Risk) it made substantial errors.
The reconstruction error was quantified using Euclidean distance (ED) between the original signal and the output.
Figure 6 shows input and reconstructed signals for unseen examples of the
Healthy Adult and the
Clinically At-Risk groups.
3.6. Scoring Falls Risk
The reconstruction error of individual repetitions was not enough to consistently identify individuals with an elevated falls risk, i.e., some repetitions of those in the at-risk groups can be close to normal, while others lay far away.
To address this issue, we propose a scoring system that utilises the variance between repetitions as a key indicator of falls risk. The score is calculated using Equation (2). The scoring system multiplies the reconstruction error value by the variance of the reconstruction error between repetitions. Including the variance reflects the fact that healthy individuals are more able to carry out the sit-to-stand movement consistently, showing low variance between repetitions, and those at risk of falls are less consistent, showing high variance between repetitions. Subtracting this term from 1 makes the maximum score of 1 achievable, and falls risk is placed on a scale of <1. Averaging the per-repetition scores gives the final score.
where
ED is the Euclidean distance between input and reconstruction,
σED is the variance between
ED over the total number of repetitions, and
n is the number of repetitions from each recording.
4. Results
Applying the scoring system to the older members of the KINECAL dataset (all those over 65 years), a pattern emerged (
Figure 7). The
Non-fallers and
Self-Reported Fallers_s scored close to 1, while the most at-risk groups (
Self-Reported Fallers_m and
Clinically At-Risk) showed lower scores. This points to the use of the scoring system to identify those at the highest risk of future falls. A similar overlap between those who report no falls and those who report only a single fall was noted in the work of Buatois et al. [
32]. Multiple fallers are likely to fall again. On the other hand, single fallers are more likely to have just been unlucky in a fall and so have more in common with non-fallers.
4.1. Obtaining a Threshold Value
To discover a threshold that would identify those at elevated falls risk, we defined a binary classification task. We combined the groups together to create two classes, i.e.,
At-risk and
Not-At-risk. The
Self-reported Faller_m and the
Clinically At-Risk were grouped and labelled as the
At-risk class. Similarly, the
Non-Fallers and
Self-reported Faller_s were grouped and labelled as the
Not-At-risk class. The rationale for these groupings can be seen both in
Figure 7 and in the work of Buatois et al. [
32].
Using the range of the scores, shown in
Figure 7 (0.88 to 1.00), as thresholds, we were able to create a receiver operator curve (ROC) (
Figure 8). Using this ROC, we found that 0.991 was the threshold that gave the best balance between the true positive rate and the false positive rate and an AUC of 0.82. Hence, this is the threshold a clinician could use to identify individuals at elevated falls risk.
4.2. Classification of Those with Elevated Falls-Risk
By re-plotting the data using the two classes and marking the threshold value as a blue line, we obtain
Figure 9. To obtain average model metrics, we carried out a 5-fold cross-validation. Using the same threshold value of 0.991, we obtained an average accuracy of 0.84, specificity of 0.88, and sensitivity of 0.68, shown in
Table 1.
Using the proposed scoring system, we were able to separate those at risk of falling from those not at risk of falling, given that they are 65 years and older. Those in the Not-At-Risk class demonstrated a high score across an age range of 65–85. Conversely, the At-Risk class show a lower score on average, with the score decreasing with age.
5. Discussion
In this study, we propose a scoring system for the assessment of falls risk based on the output of an objective representational model (an LSTM autoencoder). It was trained to reconstruct a time series of joint angles as they change over time. As training data, we used joint angles derived from healthy adults carrying out the STS-5 test. During training, the autoencoder built a representational model of an idealised healthy adult carrying out 1 repetition of the STS-5 test. The reconstruction error from this model provides an indicator of how far away from the learned norm a particular participant’s movements are. We went on to develop a scoring system that takes into account not only information derived from the model but also the variance between repetitions of the sit-to-stand movement.
Figure 4 compares a single repetition of the STS-5 movement performed by a
Healthy Adult and a
Clinically At-Risk individual. The graph on the left (
Healthy Adult) demonstrates smooth transitions in all joints, with hip joints (red lines) and knee joints (blue lines), following similar arcs. For the healthy adult, the joint angles are constrained by the body’s own systems and never reach their physical limits. The graph on the right (
Clinically At-Risk) is much less well organised; there is not as much synchronicity in the hip and knee joints, and the joints experience a greater range of movement. The knee joints can be seen reaching their physical limits and then recoiling to recapture some needed degrees of freedom. This demonstrates discoordination and lack of control over movements for the at-risk individual. Discoordination and a reduction in muscular control are precursors to the development of frailty and are indicative of falls [
33,
34].
In our work, we use the information derived from both upper and lower body joints. A visual inspection of
Figure 4 shows clear differences between a member of the Healthy Adult group and the Clinically At-Risk group. Given enough time and lots of cross-checking, one could create a set of rules that relate the change in angle through the motion to falls risk. Our research seeks to automate this process and provide a useful measure. By training the autoencoder to recreate the motions of healthy adults, it was necessary to build an internal model of healthy movements [
35,
36]. As well as clear differences between individuals, there was more variation between repetitions for those at risk of falling. We utilised this fact in the proposed scoring system by including a measure of variance between the repetitions.
A threshold was calculated for the proposed scoring system, below which individuals show elevated falls risk. However, this should not be seen as a cliff edge, as some individuals might be able to accommodate impairment better than others. This highlights the fact that systems, such as the one detailed here, should be an aid to health professionals and not a replacement for clinical judgement. That being said, using the threshold as a means of classification, we obtained an accuracy of 0.84, AUC of 0.82, specificity of 0.88 and sensitivity of 0.68. These are similar results to the recent paper from Zhang et al. [
37]. However, they used a combination of gait metrics and personal information, such as age, sex, etc., whereas our method uses just the information derived from the movement. In addition, gate analysis needs a far bigger area in which to carry out the test than the sit-to-stand test. Hence, our use of just the sit-to-stand test makes it more appropriate for use in the limited space of a doctor’s office or clinic. A similar result was also obtained by [
38], using data from a timed up and go (TUG) test, which includes a sit-to-stand phase. However, their method required the use of both Kinect and a tri-axial accelerometer to achieve the result we reported with just Kinect alone. Both of these studies used hand-crafted features, suggested by experts. In contrast, our method learns features automatically, directly from the data.
Figure 9 demonstrates how the proposed method can be used to identify those at risk of falls in an age range of 65 to 85. It also identifies participants who, despite being in the same age range, move like a healthy adult under the age of 65 and, as such, are at low risk of falls. This type of research, which differentiates between age-related measures and impairment-related measures, was a stated aim of the design of the KINECAL dataset.
The proposed method provides a score of how at risk an individual might be. In this study, we suggest a threshold under which someone is at risk of falls. However, theinclusion of a margin might prove useful in practical applications. Another advantage of this approach over a pure categorisation approach is that it gives a score on a continuous scale, which can be used not only to identify potential fallers but also to track improvements following interventions.
The limitations of this work are as follows:
The model used in this study was trained on the KINECAL dataset, which, while the largest of its kind, is still small. Future work will endeavour to gather more examples of people at high falls risk. Future work should seek to validate these results in larger populations.
The data used in this study were collected from volunteers in the local community. Inevitably, these people do not represent the most at-risk individuals. The model demonstrated that even in these groups, differences could be discovered. Future work will seek to validate this model using a wider range of participants.
The single repetition extraction process relies on a final visual inspection to assure the quality of the data. Future work should consider fully automatic methods.
6. Conclusions and Future Work
This research represents an objective method for measuring fall risk. One can imagine a small device, derived from this research, that could sit in a doctor’s office and make the assessment of falls risk as commonplace as taking someone’s blood pressure. This type of device could provide the option of a referral to a falls clinic as a preventative measure before the first fall occurs.
Most state-of-the-art studies concentrate on gait analysis for the assessment of falls. However, gait analysis can be difficult to carry out in the confines of a small office. In this study, we have opted to use a sit-to-stand test that can be easily carried out in office-sized spaces.
Our proposed method not only provides a way of screening for future fallers but could also be used in the rehabilitation process to demonstrate how interventions are helping patients regain normal movement. As well as being a useful aid to health professionals, this type of feedback can help to ensure that the recommended exercises are carried out on a regular basis. If people can see progress, they are more likely to continue. Future work could consider if the inclusion of angular velocity and asymmetry between the left and right sides of the body could provide additional useful features.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.M.-B.; Methodology, S.M.-B.; Investigation, S.M.-B.; Writing—review & editing, M.H.Y.; Supervision, M.H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable, this study did not collect data directly. I used publicly available data, i.e., the KINECT dataset.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Wilder, P. Seniors to seniors exercise program: A cost effective way to prevent falls in the frail elderly living at home. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2001, 24, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuevas-Trisan, R. Balance Problems and Fall Risks in the Elderly. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2019, 35, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tian, Y.; Thompson, J.; Buck, D.; Sonola, L. Exploring the System-Wide Costs of Falls in Older People in Torbay; Technical Report; The King’s Fund: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- NICE. Falls in Older People; Technical Report; NICE: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Irez, G.B.; Ozdemir, R.A.; Evin, R.; Irez, S.G.; Korkusuz, F. Integrating pilates exercise into an exercise program for 65+ year-old women to reduce falls. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2011, 10, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Granacher, U.; Gollhofer, A.; Hortobágyi, T.; Kressig, R.W.; Muehlbauer, T. The Importance of Trunk Muscle Strength for Balance, Functional Performance, and Fall Prevention in Seniors: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2013, 43, 627–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sherrington, C.; Whitney, J.C.; Lord, S.R.; Herbert, R.D.; Cumming, R.G.; Close, J.C.T. Effective Exercise for the Prevention of Falls: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2008, 56, 2234–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Khoury, F.; Cassou, B.; Charles, M.A.; Dargent-Molina, P. The effect of fall prevention exercise programmes on fall induced injuries in community dwelling older adults. Br. J. Sports Med. 2013, 49, 1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barker, W. Assessment and prevention of falls in older people. Nurs. Older People 2014, 26, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Natonal Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2019 Surveillance of Falls in Older People: Assessing Risk and Prevention (NICE Guideline CG161); Technical Report; NICE: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Guralnik, J.M.; Simonsick, E.M.; Ferrucci, L.; Glynn, R.J.; Berkman, L.F.; Blazer, D.G.; Scherr, P.A.; Wallace, R.B. A Short Physical Performance Battery Assessing Lower Extremity Function: Association with Self-Reported Disability and Prediction of Mortality and Nursing Home Admission. J. Gerontol. 1994, 49, M85–M94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathias, S.; Nayak, U.S.; Isaacs, B. Balance in elderly patients: The “get-up and go” test. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1986, 67, 387–389. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, V.; Jain, T.; James, J.; Cornwall, M.; Aldrich, A.; De Heer, H.D. The 3-m Backwards Walk and Retrospective Falls: Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Clinical Measure. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2019, 42, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, R.E.; Leveille, S.G.; Beauchamp, M.K.; Travison, T.; Alexander, N.; Jette, A.M.; Bean, J.F. Functional Performance as a Predictor of Injurious Falls in Older Adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shumway-Cook, A.; Brauer, S.; Woollacott, M. Predicting the Probability for Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys. Ther. 2000, 80, 896–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.C.; Chon, J.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, J.H.; Yoo, S.D.; Kim, D.H.; Lee, S.A.; Han, Y.J.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, B.Y.; et al. The Association Between Fall History and Physical Performance Tests in the Community-Dwelling Elderly: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2017, 41, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohannon, R.W. Reference Values for the Five-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test: A Descriptive Meta-Analysis of Data from Elders. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2006, 103, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lusardi, M.M.; Fritz, S.; Middleton, A.; Allison, L.; Wingood, M.; Phillips, E.; Criss, M.; Verma, S.; Osborne, J.; Chui, K.K. Determining Risk of Falls in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using Posttest Probability. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2017, 40, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ejupi, A.; Brodie, M.; Gschwind, Y.J.; Lord, S.R.; Zagler, W.L.; Delbaere, K. Kinect-Based Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test for Clinical and In-Home Assessment of Fall Risk in Older People. Gerontology 2015, 62, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tiedemann, A.; Shimada, H.; Sherrington, C.; Murray, S.; Lord, S. The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing 2008, 37, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sibley, K.M.; Straus, S.E.; Inness, E.L.; Salbach, N.M.; Jaglal, S.B. Clinical balance assessment: Perceptions of commonly-used standardized measures and current practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada. Implement. Sci. 2013, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maudsley-Barton, S.; Yap, M.H. KINECAL: A Dataset for Falls-Risk Assessment and Balance Impairment Analysis. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Xue, Z.; Ezeana, C.F.; Puppala, M.; Chen, S.; Danforth, R.L.; Yu, X.; He, T.; Vassallo, M.L.; Wong, S.T.C. Preventing inpatient falls with injuries using integrative machine learning prediction: A cohort study. NPJ Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, H.P.; Anastasiou, A.; Edwards, A.; Hibbert, P.; Makeham, M.; Luz, S.; Sheikh, A.; Donaldson, L.; Carson-Stevens, A. Automated classification of primary care patient safety incident report content and severity using supervised machine learning (ML) approaches. Health Inform. J. 2020, 26, 3123–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Antón, D.; Goñi, A.; Illarramendi, A. Exercise Recognition for Kinect-based Telerehabilitation. Methods Inf. Med. 2015, 54, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gholami, F.; Trojan, D.A.; Kovecses, J.; Haddad, W.M.; Gholami, B. A Microsoft Kinect-Based Point-of-Care Gait Assessment Framework for Multiple Sclerosis Patients. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf. 2017, 21, 1376–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Houmanfar, R.; Karg, M.; Kulic, D. Movement Analysis of Rehabilitation Exercises: Distance Metrics for Measuring Patient Progress. IEEE Syst. J. 2016, 10, 1014–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capecci, M.; Ceravolo, M.G.; Ferracuti, F.; Iarlori, S.; Kyrki, V.; Monteriù, A.; Romeo, L.; Verdini, F. A Hidden Semi-Markov Model based approach for rehabilitation exercise assessment. J. Biomed. Inform. 2018, 78, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, E.; Oliphant, T.; Peterson, P. SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python. 2001. Available online: https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/24b71448b262807648d60582c036b8e02/neurokernel (accessed on 1 May 2024).
- Hawkins, W. Fourier transform resampling: Theory and application. In Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Anaheim, CA, USA, 9–15 November 1997; Volume 3, pp. 1491–1495. [Google Scholar]
- Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar]
- Buatois, S.; Gueguen, R.; Gauchard, G.C.; Benetos, A.; Perrin, P.P. Posturography and risk of recurrent falls in healthy non- institutionalized persons aged over 65. Gerontology 2006, 52, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walston, J.; Hadley, E.C.; Ferrucci, L.; Guralnik, J.M.; Newman, A.B.; Studenski, S.A.; Ershler, W.B.; Harris, T.; Fried, L.P. Research agenda for frailty in older adults: Toward a better understanding of physiology and etiology: Summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Research Conference on Frailty in Older Adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006, 54, 991–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurz, M.J.; Stergiou, N. The ageing humans neuromuscular system expresses less certainty for selecting joint kinematics during gait. Neurosci. Lett. 2003, 348, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumelhart, D.E.; Hinton, G.E.; Williams, R.J. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 1986, 323, 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldi, P. Autoencoders, Unsupervised Learning, and Deep Architectures. In Proceedings of the ICML Workshop on Unsupervised and Transfer Learning, Washington, DC, USA, 2 July 2011; pp. 37–50. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, K.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Li, Z.; Liu, J. A Fall Risk Assessment Model for Community-Dwelling Elderly Individuals Based on Gait Parameters. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 120857–120867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Cao, J.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, M.; Luo, J.; Wang, H.; Yu, L.; Tsui, K.L.; Zhao, Y. Identifying sensors-based parameters associated with fall risk in community-dwelling older adults: An investigation and interpretation of discriminatory parameters. BMC Geriatr. 2024, 24, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Kinect joints: Illustration of the full list of the Kinect joints. Reproduced from Microsoft.
Figure 1.
Kinect joints: Illustration of the full list of the Kinect joints. Reproduced from Microsoft.
Figure 2.
Knee Angle: Illustration of how the knee joint angle was calculated in the sagittal plane. The angles in the other two planes are calculated in a similar way.
Figure 2.
Knee Angle: Illustration of how the knee joint angle was calculated in the sagittal plane. The angles in the other two planes are calculated in a similar way.
Figure 3.
A graph of right knee angle: The graph demonstrates how the right knee angle, in the sagittal plane, of a healthy 25-year-old participant changes over time while carrying out the STS-5 movement. A red × identifies the start and end of each repetition. These points were identified using the argrelextrema method of the scipy signal Python library. The frame number is denoted by frame # in the figure.
Figure 3.
A graph of right knee angle: The graph demonstrates how the right knee angle, in the sagittal plane, of a healthy 25-year-old participant changes over time while carrying out the STS-5 movement. A red × identifies the start and end of each repetition. These points were identified using the argrelextrema method of the scipy signal Python library. The frame number is denoted by frame # in the figure.
Figure 4.
Joint angle for a single rep: Illustration of the changes in joint angles over a single repetition for Healthy Adult (left) and Clinically At-Risk (right). Note, the first 30 and last 30 frames are clipped before the distance is calculated. These early and late frames were added as part of the padding process and do not represent the movement.
Figure 4.
Joint angle for a single rep: Illustration of the changes in joint angles over a single repetition for Healthy Adult (left) and Clinically At-Risk (right). Note, the first 30 and last 30 frames are clipped before the distance is calculated. These early and late frames were added as part of the padding process and do not represent the movement.
Figure 5.
Autoencoder: The autoencoder consists of a 3-layer encoder and a 3-layer decoder. The latent representation is 4 LSTM units. The input time series was 200 frames by 16 channels; these were also the dimensions of the reconstructed output. It was built using TensorFlow.
Figure 5.
Autoencoder: The autoencoder consists of a 3-layer encoder and a 3-layer decoder. The latent representation is 4 LSTM units. The input time series was 200 frames by 16 channels; these were also the dimensions of the reconstructed output. It was built using TensorFlow.
Figure 6.
Reconstruction of single rep: This Figure shows the reconstruction of a single repetition carried out by (a) a member of the Healthy Adult group and (b) a member of the Clinically At-Risk group. Movement (a) was part of the validation set, movement (b) was part of the test set. The Autoencoder is able to recreate movement (a) with high faithfulness, and so the reconstruction error (expressed as Euclidean distance) is low. The autoencoder struggles to recreate movement (b) because it comes from a different distribution; the reconstruction error is 5.5 times larger for this movement, indicating that it lies far away from the training distribution. The time series shown here have been normalised to aid training. Hence, the y-axis shows normalised joint angles, and the x-axis shows frames. Note, the first 30 and last 30 frames, of the reconstructed time series, are clipped before the distance is calculated; these frames were added as part of the padding process and do not represent the movement.
Figure 6.
Reconstruction of single rep: This Figure shows the reconstruction of a single repetition carried out by (a) a member of the Healthy Adult group and (b) a member of the Clinically At-Risk group. Movement (a) was part of the validation set, movement (b) was part of the test set. The Autoencoder is able to recreate movement (a) with high faithfulness, and so the reconstruction error (expressed as Euclidean distance) is low. The autoencoder struggles to recreate movement (b) because it comes from a different distribution; the reconstruction error is 5.5 times larger for this movement, indicating that it lies far away from the training distribution. The time series shown here have been normalised to aid training. Hence, the y-axis shows normalised joint angles, and the x-axis shows frames. Note, the first 30 and last 30 frames, of the reconstructed time series, are clipped before the distance is calculated; these frames were added as part of the padding process and do not represent the movement.
![Sensors 24 04593 g006]()
Figure 7.
Separation of individuals by impairment: this graph represents the score derived from the autoencoder; the most at-risk are shown furthest away from the normal threshold, indicated by the blue line.
Figure 7.
Separation of individuals by impairment: this graph represents the score derived from the autoencoder; the most at-risk are shown furthest away from the normal threshold, indicated by the blue line.
Figure 8.
ROC curve for the proposed model: the ROC curve shows the trade-off between false positive rate and true positive rate for different threshold values. A threshold of 0.991 was found to give the best result. This threshold gave an average specificity of 0.88 and an average sensitivity of 0.68, shown in
Table 1.
Figure 8.
ROC curve for the proposed model: the ROC curve shows the trade-off between false positive rate and true positive rate for different threshold values. A threshold of 0.991 was found to give the best result. This threshold gave an average specificity of 0.88 and an average sensitivity of 0.68, shown in
Table 1.
Figure 9.
Graph of age vs. falls risk: this graph shows two distinct populations, Not-At-Risk (grey) and At-Risk (orange). The trend line for both is very different with age. The model separates the two classes based on whether the score lies above or below a threshold value, shown as a blue line.
Figure 9.
Graph of age vs. falls risk: this graph shows two distinct populations, Not-At-Risk (grey) and At-Risk (orange). The trend line for both is very different with age. The model separates the two classes based on whether the score lies above or below a threshold value, shown as a blue line.
Table 1.
Performance metrics A summary of 5-fold cross validation. The mean values are shown with standard deviation in brackets and a 95% confidence interval (CI).
Table 1.
Performance metrics A summary of 5-fold cross validation. The mean values are shown with standard deviation in brackets and a 95% confidence interval (CI).
| Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity |
---|
1 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.73 |
2 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.87 |
3 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.63 |
4 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.60 |
5 | 0.71 | 0.65 | 0.59 |
mean | 0.84 (0.08) 95% CI ± 0.15 | 0.88 (0.11) 95% CI ± 0.22 | 0.68 (0.11) 95% CI ± 0.21 |
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).