Open AccessEntropy‐based method to quantify limb length discrepancy using inertial sensors
Author(s) -
Karunarathne Maddumage Sajeewani,
Li Saiyi,
Pathirana Pubudu,
Williams Gareth
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
iet wireless sensor systems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.433
H-Index - 27
eISSN - 2043-6394
pISSN - 2043-6386
DOI - 10.1049/iet-wss.2017.0049
Subject(s) - estimator , radiography , kinematics , robustness (evolution) , inertial measurement unit , mathematics , computer science , observational error , artificial intelligence , statistics , orthodontics , biomedical engineering , medicine , surgery , physics , biochemistry , chemistry , classical mechanics , gene
Limb length is a useful parameter in the assessment of common musculoskeletal disorders such as limb length discrepancy. The measurement variation among rates adversely affects the quantitative aspect of assessments and introduces a greater subjectivity in the course of treatment. Common practise for measuring limb length is based on radiographic imaging techniques which are inconvenient, costly and require clinical knowledge. Direct instruments are difficult to use with patients due to susceptibility to human error in determining the position of the rotational joint. In this study, the determination of limb length is automated using a contemporary algorithm which applies curvature to the measurements from a low‐cost and miniaturised inertial sensor, primarily used in the bio‐kinematic research. The motion artefacts contribute to the ultimate estimations and, in this approach, a least noise threshold model is employed to address the robustness. The proposed estimation technique was validated with real‐data observed from 14 healthy subjects comparing with radiographic and direct measurements. The experimental results indicate greater accuracy compared with manual measurements with low root mean squared error percentages with values ranging from 5.34 to 5.84%. Additionally, the mean limb length difference between our estimator and both radiographic measurements and direct measurement was <1.6 cm.