4.6 Review

Fall Risk Assessment Using Wearable Sensors: A Narrative Review

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22030984

关键词

fall risk assessment; fall prediction; wearable sensors

资金

  1. FCT--Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia--national funds [UMINHO-VC/BII/2021/02, PD/BD/141515/2018, UIDB/04436/2020, UIDP/04436/2020]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDB/04436/2020, PD/BD/141515/2018, UIDP/04436/2020] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of fall risk assessment methods using wearable sensors, aiming to identify trends and enhance the reliability of this assessment. The findings will guide researchers in designing innovative solutions.
Recently, fall risk assessment has been a main focus in fall-related research. Wearable sensors have been used to increase the objectivity of this assessment, building on the traditional use of oversimplified questionnaires. However, it is necessary to define standard procedures that will us enable to acknowledge the multifactorial causes behind fall events while tackling the heterogeneity of the currently developed systems. Thus, it is necessary to identify the different specifications and demands of each fall risk assessment method. Hence, this manuscript provides a narrative review on the fall risk assessment methods performed in the scientific literature using wearable sensors. For each identified method, a comprehensive analysis has been carried out in order to find trends regarding the most used sensors and its characteristics, activities performed in the experimental protocol, and algorithms used to classify the fall risk. We also verified how studies performed the validation process of the developed fall risk assessment systems. The identification of trends for each fall risk assessment method would help researchers in the design of standard innovative solutions and enhance the reliability of this assessment towards a homogeneous benchmark solution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据