Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Multimodal Sensor Dataset for Monitoring Older Adults Post Lower-Limb Fractures in Community Settings

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MAISON-LLF is the first public multimodal dataset of older adults recovering from lower-limb fractures at home.

desk verdict The dataset is real and needed, but the benchmark claims are inflated by label copying and possibly non-nested feature selection; LOPO is negative. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13888 v1 pith:AQLRN35E submitted 2025-01-23 cs.LG cs.CV

Ali Abedi , Charlene H. Chu , Shehroz S. Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords multimodalsensordatasetolderadultslower-limbfracturesocialisolationfunctionaldeclineremotehealthmonitoringwearablesensorsmachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces MAISON-LLF, a publicly released dataset that continuously monitored ten older adults living alone after lower-limb fracture surgery, for eight weeks each, inside their own homes. The dataset combines smartphone, smartwatch, motion, sleep, and GPS data with biweekly clinical questionnaires measuring social isolation and functional decline. The paper argues that this resource supports supervised machine-learning models that estimate outcomes such as the Social Isolation Scale and Oxford Hip Score from daily sensor features. If the dataset delivers on that promise, it gives the research community a shared foundation for remote monitoring of recovery and for spotting isolation and decline earlier than clinic visits alone.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the MAISON platform, a multimodal sensor system built from an Android phone app, a Wear OS smartwatch app, external motion and sleep sensors, and a central cloud that aggregates the streams. Around that platform, the paper's analytic machinery is a daily feature-extraction pipeline: raw acceleration, heart rate, step, motion, GPS, and sleep data are aggregated into 35 daily features per participant, missing days are imputed within two-week windows, and clinical scores are attached to one of three outcome-assignment schemes (one biweekly sample, two weekly samples, or fourteen daily samples). Supervised models are then trained with recursive feature elimination and evaluated under five-fold, leave-one-sample-out, and leave-one-participant-out cross-validation, with SHAP values used to show which sensor features drive the estimates.

What would settle it

On the released daily features, train CatBoost with leave-one-participant-out cross-validation and compute SIS and OHS $R^2$; if the $R^2$ stays at or below zero for unseen participants, the claim that the dataset supports models that generalize across individuals is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MAISON-LLF is the first publicly available multimodal dataset collected from older adults living alone in the community after lower-limb fracture surgery, and that it is suitable for training predictive models of social isolation and functional decline. The dataset contains 560 days of continuous 24-hour sensor data from ten participants, paired with gold-standard clinical instruments administered every two weeks. In the paper's technical validation, daily sensor features, after recursive feature elimination, allowed gradient-boosting models to estimate the Social Isolation Scale and the Oxford Hip Score with low mean absolute error under five-fold and leave-one-sample-out cross-validation. The authors position these results as a foundational comparison for future work on this population.

Load-bearing premise

The validation assumes that correlations learned between sensor features and clinical scores will generalize to new participants, rather than to new days from the same ten people.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can download the dataset and use the provided daily, weekly, and biweekly feature matrices to train supervised models for social isolation, hip and knee function, mobility, and physical performance outcomes.
  • The 560 labeled days give the community a common benchmark for detection and prediction tasks in a population that has been largely absent from public health-monitoring datasets.
  • Because item-level questionnaire scores are included, models can estimate individual SIS, OHS, or OKS items rather than only total scores, enabling finer-grained clinical monitoring.
  • The dataset helps close the identified gap in public multimodal data for older adults living alone after fracture, supporting efforts toward remote, passive assessment of isolation and decline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the released data include participant identifiers, a straightforward extension beyond the paper's protocol is to benchmark all models under strict leave-one-participant-out splits, which the paper's own results suggest is the harder generalization test.
  • With data collection described as ongoing toward twenty participants, the first ten participants can serve as a training cohort and later participants as an external test cohort, allowing the predictive claims to be re-examined as the dataset grows.
  • The item-level questionnaire data open a route to multi-label models that predict each clinical question separately, which could reveal which aspects of social interaction or physical function are most detectable from passive sensors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MAISON-LLF, a publicly available multimodal sensor dataset collected from ten older adults living alone in the community after lower-limb fracture surgery. Each participant was monitored for eight weeks, yielding 560 days of continuous data from smartphone sensors, a smartwatch, motion detectors, and sleep-tracking mats, alongside biweekly gold-standard clinical questionnaires (Social Isolation Scale, Oxford Hip Score, Oxford Knee Score, Timed Up and Go, and 30-second chair stand). The authors describe the data collection protocol, preprocessing, feature extraction, three outcome-assignment schemes (biweekly, weekly, daily), and technical validation experiments in which supervised machine-learning and deep-learning models estimate SIS and OHS under 5-fold, leave-one-sample-out, and leave-one-participant-out cross-validation.

Significance. If the dataset is as described, it addresses a real gap in the literature: there is no publicly available multimodal dataset for this specific population (older adults living alone after lower-limb fracture). The openly shared data and code on Zenodo and GitHub are concrete strengths, and the collection protocol is described in detail with clear inclusion criteria and ethical approval. However, the paper's central claim that the dataset can support supervised models for estimating SIS and OHS is not convincingly supported by the reported experiments: the only participant-disjoint evaluation (LOPO) yields negative R² values, and the daily-label-copying scheme inflates the other cross-validation results. The resource itself remains valuable for future research even if the benchmark results are not yet evidence of generalizable predictive utility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The leave-one-participant-out (LOPO) results are the only participant-disjoint evaluation, and they show CatBoost achieving R² = -0.18 for SIS and R² = -0.21 for OHS. This means the models that perform well in LOSO and 5-fold CV fail to generalize to unseen participants, directly contradicting the implication in the abstract and introduction that the dataset supports supervised models for estimating these health outcomes. Please report LOPO as the primary generalization metric, provide per-participant results or confidence intervals, and temper the claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.2.4, Figure 2] In the daily outcome-assignment scheme, one biweekly clinical label is copied onto 14 consecutive daily samples. In 5-fold and LOSO CV, samples from the same participant and the same biweekly label can appear in both the training and test sets, so the daily results in Table 4 are not independent and the reported R² values likely reflect label duplication rather than genuine predictive signal. The daily evaluation should be redone with participant-disjoint splits or with a leakage-aware grouping that respects the biweekly label structure.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 4 footnote] The paper states that RFE was conducted on the dataset and that training used the first 16 sensor and 2 demographic features selected via RFE, but it does not state that feature selection was nested inside each CV fold. If feature selection used the full dataset, test information leaks into the feature choice in all CV settings, including LOPO, further weakening the validity of the reported numbers. Please clarify whether feature selection was nested, or implement it inside each training fold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The subsection title 'MAISON-LLF: MAISON-Lower Limp Fracture Dataset' contains a typo; it should read 'Lower Limb Fracture Dataset'.
  2. [Section 1.1, References] The text refers to 'Braun et al. [28]', but reference [28] is the Marmor et al. systematic review; please correct the in-text citation or the reference list entry.
  3. [Table 4 footnote] The statement that 'training was performed on the first 16 most important sensor features and the first 2 most important demographic information' would benefit from an explanation of how these numbers were chosen, to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness.
  4. [Section 4.1] The SHAP interpretation example for 'sleep-deep' describes a single feature's contribution; a brief quantitative summary of the variability of SHAP values across participants would make the interpretation more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the dataset construction and model targets are independent measurements; the mild self-citation is not load-bearing, and the validation leakage is a statistical concern rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central product is a collected multimodal dataset: sensor streams (smartphone, smartwatch, motion, sleep, GPS) plus clinical questionnaire scores (SIS, OHS, OKS, TUG, chair stand). The clinical scores are measured with validated instruments, not constructed from the sensor features, so the supervised models are genuinely trained to estimate external ground-truth labels. No equation defines SIS or OHS in terms of sensor inputs, and no sensor feature is fitted from the questionnaire scores. The cited pilot study [9], by overlapping authors, is used only as motivation ("Preliminary investigations on a smaller subset of this dataset [9] reveal strong correlations") and is not the basis of the dataset or of the new validation experiments. The remaining concerns are empirical validity issues, not circularity: Section 2.2.4 and Figure 2 assign one biweekly label to 14 daily samples, so 5-fold and LOSO evaluations are not fully independent, and Section 4.1 and Table 4's feature selection appears to be applied before cross-validation rather than nested, which can inflate reported R². Those problems affect how much the Table 4 benchmarks support generalization, but they do not make the predicted outcome identical to the model input by construction. The dataset is publicly released with code, and its primary contribution is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dataset construction does not introduce new theoretical constants or entities. The main assumptions are clinical: that the selected questionnaires capture the target constructs, that imputation is benign, and that the small homogeneous sample can anchor benchmark results. The ML models use standard hyperparameters and an RFE feature-count choice, which affects validation numbers but not the dataset itself.

free parameters (1)
  • RFE selected feature count = 16 sensor features + 2 demographic features
    The top-k feature count for each predictive model is a hand-chosen modeling choice that affects the reported validation metrics (Table 4 note 2). It is not a constant in a scientific law, but it does influence the benchmark results.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SIS and OHS questionnaire scores are valid gold-standard measures of social isolation and functional decline in this population.
    Used as ground truth for all validation models (Section 4); SIS is cited to [45] and OHS to [46], but the paper does not independently validate these questionnaires against behavioral ground truth in the study cohort.
  • domain assumption Imputation using the participant's own feature average within the same two-week period preserves the signal in the 6.7% missing daily data.
    Section 2.2.4 describes this imputation scheme; it could smooth over real day-to-day variation, but the low missing rate makes the assumption reasonable.
  • domain assumption Ten participants living alone in the Greater Toronto Area are sufficient to produce foundational benchmark results.
    Section 5.2 acknowledges the small sample size and urban-only setting, so the authors themselves flag this as a limitation on generalizability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal Sensor Dataset for Monitoring Older Adults Post Lower-Limb Fractures in Community Settings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQLRN35E

@misc{pith2026250113888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal Sensor Dataset for Monitoring Older Adults Post Lower-Limb Fractures in Community Settings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQLRN35E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13888}
}
read the original abstract

Lower-Limb Fractures (LLF) are a major health concern for older adults, often leading to reduced mobility and prolonged recovery, potentially impairing daily activities and independence. During recovery, older adults frequently face social isolation and functional decline, complicating rehabilitation and adversely affecting physical and mental health. Multi-modal sensor platforms that continuously collect data and analyze it using machine-learning algorithms can remotely monitor this population and infer health outcomes. They can also alert clinicians to individuals at risk of isolation and decline. This paper presents a new publicly available multi-modal sensor dataset, MAISON-LLF, collected from older adults recovering from LLF in community settings. The dataset includes data from smartphone and smartwatch sensors, motion detectors, sleep-tracking mattresses, and clinical questionnaires on isolation and decline. The dataset was collected from ten older adults living alone at home for eight weeks each, totaling 560 days of 24-hour sensor data. For technical validation, supervised machine-learning and deep-learning models were developed using the sensor and clinical questionnaire data, providing a foundational comparison for the research community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The block diagram of MAISON [35], as described in subsection 2.1. The phone app is designed to collect and store data from the phone’s built-in sensors [36], collect questionnaire responses, connect with the watch to receive and store the watch’s built-in sensors data Third-party API K Third-party Cloud 1 Third-party Cloud K Third-party API 1 Sensor Data K Sensor Data 1 Smartwatch Data Data Bluetooth AI-enabled Cent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three approaches for outcome assignment and data sample creation: biweekly, weekly, and daily, resulting in 1, 2, and 14 data samples per gold-standard data, respectively. d, d + 1, …, d + 13 are 14 days before the day a biweekly gold-standard data was collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Directory tree of the MAISON-LLF dataset, including the sensor data, features extracted from the sensor data (the file structure is consistent across participants, from p01 to p10), and the constructed dataset in different settings. 3.3. Key Statistics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example visualization of the daily features for one participant over 8 weeks of data: (a) acceleration-skew, (b) heartrate-max, (c) motion-count, (d) position-travelled-distance, (e) sleep-total, and (f) step-count (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of clinical questionnaire data: (a) Social Isolation Scale, (b) Oxford Hip Score, (c) Oxford Knee Score, (d) Timed Up and Go test, and (e) 30-second Chair Stand test. 4.1. Feature Selection The Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) approach [51], [52] was used…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values, i.e., impact on Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) model output for regression of (a) Social Isolation Scale (SIS) and (b) Oxford Hip Score (OHS). 4.2. Predictive Modeling The machine-learning and deep-learning…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explaining Recovery Trajectories of Older Adults Post Lower-Limb Fracture Using Modality-wise Multiview Clustering and Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Grouping sensor data by modality and asking GPT-4o to label the clusters yields labels that often correlate with clinical scores, but the validation is statistically fragile.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative predictors for early mortality following hip fracture surgery,

    M. Bui, W. S. Nijmeijer, J. H. Hegeman, A. Witteveen, and C. G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative predictors for early mortality following hip fracture surgery,” Osteoporos Int, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 561–574, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00198- 023-06942-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00198- 2024

  2. [2]

    Global, regional, national trends of femur fracture and machine learning prediction: Comprehensive findings and questions from global burden of disease 1990-2019,

    J. Wu et al., “Global, regional, national trends of femur fracture and machine learning prediction: Comprehensive findings and questions from global burden of disease 1990-2019,” J Orthop Translat, vol. 46, pp. 46–52, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jot.2024.03.002 1990

  3. [3]

    Global burden of hip fracture: The Global Burden of Disease Study,

    J.-N. Feng, C.-G. Zhang, B.-H. Li, S.-Y. Zhan, S.-F. Wang, and C.-L. Song, “Global burden of hip fracture: The Global Burden of Disease Study,” Osteoporos Int, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 41–52, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00198-023-06907-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00198-023-06907-3 2024

  4. [4]

    Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function,

    J. Magaziner et al., “Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function,” J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. M498-507, Sep. 2000, doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.9.m498

    work page doi:10.1093/gerona/55.9.m498

  5. [5]

    Assessing the impact of osteoporosis on the burden of hip fractures,

    A. Odén, E. V. McCloskey, H. Johansson, and J. A. Kanis, “Assessing the impact of osteoporosis on the burden of hip fractures,” Calcif Tissue Int, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 42–49, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00223-012-9666-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00223-012-9666-6 2013

  6. [6]

    A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture,

    S. M. Dyer et al., “A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture,” BMC Geriatr, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 158, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0

    work page doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0 2016

  7. [7]

    Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977- 2001,

    J. Ryg, L. Rejnmark, S. Overgaard, K. Brixen, and P. Vestergaard, “Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977- 2001,” J Bone Miner Res, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1299–1307, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1359/jbmr.090207

    work page doi:10.1359/jbmr.090207 1977

  8. [8]

    Increasing burden of major trauma in elderly adults during 2003-2015: Analysis of real-world data from Taiwan,

    I.-Y. Lee, C.-Y. Shih, Y.-T. Wei, T.-C. Weng, S.-J. Shieh, and J.-D. Wang, “Increasing burden of major trauma in elderly adults during 2003-2015: Analysis of real-world data from Taiwan,” J Formos Med Assoc, vol. 121, no. 1 Pt 1, pp. 144–151, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.02.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2021.02.008 2003

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Correlations between Social Isolation and Functional Decline in Older Adults after Lower Limb Fractures Using Multimodal Sensors: A Pilot Study,

    F. Dayyani, C. H. Chu, A. Abedi, and S. S. Khan, “Correlations between Social Isolation and Functional Decline in Older Adults after Lower Limb Fractures Using Multimodal Sensors: A Pilot Study,” Algorithms, vol. 17, no. 9, p. 383, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Exploring the association between social isolation and utilization of primary health services by older adults: evidence from China,

    X. Xie, Y. Lyu, X. Li, Z. Zhuang, and A. Xu, “Exploring the association between social isolation and utilization of primary health services by older adults: evidence from China,” Front Public Health, vol. 12, p. 1341304, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1341304

    2024

  3. [11]

    Cadel, K

    L. Cadel, K. Kuluski, A. C. Everall, and S. J. T. Guilcher, “Recommendations made by patients, caregivers, providers, and decision-makers to improve transitions in care for older adults with hip fracture: a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada,” BMC Geriatr, vol. 22, no. 1, p....

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Sensor-based assessment of social isolation in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review,

    S. S. Khan, T. Gu, L. Spinelli, and R. H. Wang, “Sensor-based assessment of social isolation in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review,” Biomed Eng Online, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12938-023-01080-4

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Sensor-Based Assessment of Variability in Daily Physical Activity and Frailty,

    D. Pradeep Kumar, B. Najafi, K. Laksari, and N. Toosizadeh, “Sensor-Based Assessment of Variability in Daily Physical Activity and Frailty,” Gerontology, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 1147–1154, 2023, doi: 10.1159/000530900

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Exploring the nature and variation of the stigma associated with loneliness,

    M. Barreto et al., “Exploring the nature and variation of the stigma associated with loneliness,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 2658–2679, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Restricted activity and functional decline among community- living older persons,

    T. M. Gill, H. Allore, and Z. Guo, “Restricted activity and functional decline among community- living older persons,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 163, no. 11, pp. 1317–1322, 2003. 16

    2003

  8. [16]

    Real-time data analysis in health monitoring systems: A comprehensive systematic literature review,

    A. I. Paganelli et al., “Real-time data analysis in health monitoring systems: A comprehensive systematic literature review,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 127, p. 104009, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Artificial intelligence-driven virtual rehabilitation for people living in the community: A scoping review,

    A. Abedi, T. J. F. Colella, M. Pakosh, and S. S. Khan, “Artificial intelligence-driven virtual rehabilitation for people living in the community: A scoping review,” NPJ Digit Med, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 25, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-00998-w

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    The benefits of recreation for the recovery and social inclusion of individuals with mental illness: An integrative review,

    F. Litwiller et al., “The benefits of recreation for the recovery and social inclusion of individuals with mental illness: An integrative review,” Leisure Sciences, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Is technology present in frailty? Technology a back-up tool for dealing with frailty in the elderly: A systematic review,

    I. Mugueta-Aguinaga and B. Garcia-Zapirain, “Is technology present in frailty? Technology a back-up tool for dealing with frailty in the elderly: A systematic review,” Aging and disease, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 176, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A predictive model for automatic detection of social isolation in older adults,

    A. Martinez, V. Ortiz, H. Estrada, and M. Gonzalez, “A predictive model for automatic detection of social isolation in older adults,” in 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), IEEE, 2017, pp. 68–75

    2017

  13. [21]

    The relationship of social isolation and sleep in older adults: evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,

    H.-X. Jiang, Y. Liu, J.-J. Jiang, J.-H. Wei, C.-C. Niu, and J. Yu, “The relationship of social isolation and sleep in older adults: evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,” Aging Ment Health, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 2295–2304, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13607863.2023.2230919

    2023

  14. [22]

    Social Disadvantage and Social Isolation Are Associated With a Higher Resting Heart Rate: Evidence From The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing,

    C. McCrory et al., “Social Disadvantage and Social Isolation Are Associated With a Higher Resting Heart Rate: Evidence From The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing,” J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 463–473, May 2016, doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu163

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Sensor-driven detection of social isolation in community-dwelling elderly,

    N. Goonawardene, X. Toh, and H.-P. Tan, “Sensor-driven detection of social isolation in community-dwelling elderly,” in Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services and Contexts: Third International Conference, ITAP 2017, Held as Part of HCI Internationa...

    2017

  16. [24]

    A self-supervised algorithm to detect signs of social isolation in the elderly from daily activity sequences,

    B. Prenkaj et al., “A self-supervised algorithm to detect signs of social isolation in the elderly from daily activity sequences,” Artif Intell Med, vol. 135, p. 102454, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102454

    2023

  17. [25]

    S. Pliannuom et al., “Characteristics and Effects of Home-Based Digital Health Interventions on Functional Outcomes in Older Patients With Hip Fractures After Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” J Med Internet Res, vol. 26, p. e49482, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.2196/49482

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Effectiveness of sensor monitoring in a rehabilitation programme for older patients after hip fracture: a three-arm stepped wedge randomised trial,

    M. C. Pol, G. Ter Riet, M. van Hartingsveldt, B. Kröse, and B. M. Buurman, “Effectiveness of sensor monitoring in a rehabilitation programme for older patients after hip fracture: a three-arm stepped wedge randomised trial,” Age Ageing, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 650–657, Sep. 2019, ...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Movement Patterns in Older Adults Recovering From Hip Fracture,

    J. J. M. Kraaijkamp, M. Stijntjes, J. H. De Groot, N. H. Chavannes, W. P. Achterberg, and E. F. van Dam van Isselt, “Movement Patterns in Older Adults Recovering From Hip Fracture,” J Aging Phys Act, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 312–320, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1123/japa.2023-0090

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Use of Wearable Technology to Measure Activity in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review,

    M. T. Marmor et al., “Use of Wearable Technology to Measure Activity in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review,” Indian J Orthop, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1112–1122, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43465-022-00629-0

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    TIHM: An open dataset for remote healthcare monitoring in dementia,

    F. Palermo et al., “TIHM: An open dataset for remote healthcare monitoring in dementia,” Sci Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 606, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02519-y

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    A database with frailty, functional and inertial gait metrics for the research of fall causes in older adults,

    S. García-de-Villa et al., “A database with frailty, functional and inertial gait metrics for the research of fall causes in older adults,” Sci Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 566, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02428-0

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    A Novel Multi-modal Sensor Dataset and Benchmark to Detect Agitation in People Living with Dementia in a Residential Care Setting,

    S. S. Khan et al., “A Novel Multi-modal Sensor Dataset and Benchmark to Detect Agitation in People Living with Dementia in a Residential Care Setting,” 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Automatic assessment of functional health decline in older adults based on smart home data,

    A. Alberdi Aramendi, A. Weakley, A. Aztiria Goenaga, M. Schmitter-Edgecombe, and D. J. Cook, “Automatic assessment of functional health decline in older adults based on smart home data,” J Biomed Inform, vol. 81, pp. 119–130, May 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.03.009

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Wearable activity data can predict functional recovery after musculoskeletal injury: Feasibility of a machine learning approach,

    B. J. Braun et al., “Wearable activity data can predict functional recovery after musculoskeletal injury: Feasibility of a machine learning approach,” Injury, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 111254, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.111254. 17

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hybrid multimodal wearable sensors for comprehensive health monitoring,

    K. Mahato, T. Saha, S. Ding, S. S. Sandhu, A.-Y. Chang, and J. Wang, “Hybrid multimodal wearable sensors for comprehensive health monitoring,” Nature Electronics, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Maison-multimodal ai-based sensor platform for older individuals,

    A. Abedi, F. Dayyani, C. Chu, and S. S. Khan, “Maison-multimodal ai-based sensor platform for older individuals,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), IEEE, 2022, pp. 238–242

    2022

  28. [36]

    Android Developers: Sensors Overview,

    Google, “Android Developers: Sensors Overview,” 2024. Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://developer.android.com/develop/sensors-and- location/sensors/sensors_overview

    2024

  29. [37]

    Android Developers: Geofencing Overview,

    Google, “Android Developers: Geofencing Overview,” 2024. Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://developer.android.com/develop/sensors-and-location/location/geofencing

    2024

  30. [38]

    Google Cloud Platform (GCP),

    Google, “Google Cloud Platform (GCP),” 2024. Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.com/gcp?hl=en

    2024

  31. [39]

    The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE),

    L. Kurlowicz and M. Wallace, “The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE),” J Gerontol Nurs, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 8–9, May 1999, doi: 10.3928/0098-9134-19990501-08

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    Longitudinal trajectories of functional recovery after hip fracture,

    S. Dakhil et al., “Longitudinal trajectories of functional recovery after hip fracture,” PLoS One, vol. 18, no. 3, p. e0283551, 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283551

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    moto g7 specifications

    Motorola, “moto g7 specifications.” Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en- ca.support.motorola.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/137727/~/moto-g7-specifications

    2024

  34. [42]

    TicWatch Pro Specifications

    Mobvoi, “TicWatch Pro Specifications.” Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mobvoi.com/us/pages/ticwatchpro4g

    2024

  35. [43]

    Withings Sleep

    Withings, “Withings Sleep.” Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.withings.com/ca/en/sleep

    2024

  36. [44]

    Insteon Motion Sensor II

    Insteon, “Insteon Motion Sensor II.” Accessed: Dec. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://shop.insteon.com/en-ca/products/motion-sensor-ii

    2024

  37. [45]

    Psychometric Evaluation of the Social Isolation Scale in Older Adults,

    N. R. Nicholson, R. Feinn, E. A. Casey, and J. Dixon, “Psychometric Evaluation of the Social Isolation Scale in Older Adults,” Gerontologist, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. e491–e501, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz083

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    The Oxford hip score: the patient’s perspective,

    V. Wylde, I. D. Learmonth, and V. J. Cavendish, “The Oxford hip score: the patient’s perspective,” Health Qual Life Outcomes, vol. 3, p. 66, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-66

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    The Oxford Knee Score; problems and pitfalls,

    S. L. Whitehouse, A. W. Blom, A. H. Taylor, G. T. R. Pattison, and G. C. Bannister, “The Oxford Knee Score; problems and pitfalls,” Knee, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 287–291, Aug. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.11.005

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    The timed ‘Up & Go’: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons,

    D. Podsiadlo and S. Richardson, “The timed ‘Up & Go’: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons,” J Am Geriatr Soc, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 142–148, Feb. 1991, doi: 10.1111/j.1532- 5415.1991.tb01616.x

    1991

  41. [49]

    Normative physical fitness scores for community-dwelling older adults,

    H.-T. Chen, C.-H. Lin, and L.-H. Yu, “Normative physical fitness scores for community-dwelling older adults,” J Nurs Res, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 30–41, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1097/JNR.0b013e3181999d4c

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    MAISON-LLF: Multimodal AI-Based Sensor Platform for Older iNdividuals-Lower Limb Fracture,

    A. Abedi, C. Chu, and S. Khan, “MAISON-LLF: Multimodal AI-Based Sensor Platform for Older iNdividuals-Lower Limb Fracture,” Dataset, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://zenodo.org/records/14597613

    2025

  43. [51]

    The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction,

    D. Ruppert, “The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction,” 2004, Taylor & Francis

    2004

  44. [52]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” the Journal of machine Learning research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,

    L. Prokhorenkova, G. Gusev, A. Vorobev, A. V. Dorogush, and A. Gulin, “CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,

    S. Lundberg, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07874, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Machine Learning Approaches for Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry,

    D. B. Dwyer, P. Falkai, and N. Koutsouleris, “Machine Learning Approaches for Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry,” Annu Rev Clin Psychol, vol. 14, pp. 91–118, May 2018, doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045037. 18

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,

    G. Ke et al., “Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Bag of states: a non-sequential approach to video-based engagement measurement,

    A. Abedi, C. Thomas, D. B. Jayagopi, and S. S. Khan, “Bag of states: a non-sequential approach to video-based engagement measurement,” Multimedia Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    ROCKET: exceptionally fast and accurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,

    A. Dempster, F. Petitjean, and G. I. Webb, “ROCKET: exceptionally fast and accurate time series classification using random convolutional kernels,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1454–1495, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Digital ageism: challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults,

    C. H. Chu et al., “Digital ageism: challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults,” The Gerontologist, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 947–955, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Strategies to Mitigate Age-Related Bias in Machine Learning: Scoping Review,

    C. Chu et al., “Strategies to Mitigate Age-Related Bias in Machine Learning: Scoping Review,” JMIR aging, vol. 7, p. e53564, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Codes for MAISON-LLF: Multimodal AI-Based Sensor Platform for Older iNdividuals- Lower Limb Fracture,

    A. Abedi, “Codes for MAISON-LLF: Multimodal AI-Based Sensor Platform for Older iNdividuals- Lower Limb Fracture,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/abedidev/maison-llf

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.