Validity and reliability of an automated fall risk assessment system using a depth camera in community-dwelling adults: A proof-of-concept pilot study.
{"title":"Validity and reliability of an automated fall risk assessment system using a depth camera in community-dwelling adults: A proof-of-concept pilot study.","authors":"Sungbae Jo","doi":"10.1177/09287329261445778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundClinical fall risk prediction often relies on subjective observation or simplistic metrics, despite the high costs associated with falls in older adults.ObjectiveThis proof-of-concept study evaluated the validity and reliability of a consumer-grade depth camera system as an objective alternative for automated fall risk assessment.MethodsThirty-nine community-dwelling adults performed Timed Up and Go (TUG), Five Times Sit-to-Stand (FTSS), and Tandem Stance (TST) tests. Concurrent measurements were taken by an automated depth camera and blinded physical therapists. Validity (concurrent, convergent, discriminative) and reliability were assessed.ResultsAutomated FTSS and TUG tests demonstrated strong concurrent validity with therapist measurements (r = 0.813 and 0.915) and high discriminative accuracy for fall history (AUC = 0.941 and 0.864). Depth camera-based FTSS vertical velocity was significantly lower in participants with a fall history (<i>p</i> < 0.001). TST sway metrics showed limited discriminative validity. The system showed good to excellent test-retest reliability. In an age-stratified analysis of older adults (≥65 years), AFTSS time and the AUC-weighted composite score demonstrated acceptable discrimination for retrospective fall history (AUC = 0.892 and 0.867, respectively)ConclusionsThe depth camera system showed promise as a valid and reliable tool for objective quantification of performance on fall-risk-related functional tests, particularly FTSS and TUG, when benchmarked against therapist-administered measurements. Discriminative findings against retrospective fall history should be interpreted as exploratory, and larger prospective studies are required before clinical screening thresholds can be recommended.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06519864).</p>","PeriodicalId":48978,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"9287329261445778"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09287329261445778","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundClinical fall risk prediction often relies on subjective observation or simplistic metrics, despite the high costs associated with falls in older adults.ObjectiveThis proof-of-concept study evaluated the validity and reliability of a consumer-grade depth camera system as an objective alternative for automated fall risk assessment.MethodsThirty-nine community-dwelling adults performed Timed Up and Go (TUG), Five Times Sit-to-Stand (FTSS), and Tandem Stance (TST) tests. Concurrent measurements were taken by an automated depth camera and blinded physical therapists. Validity (concurrent, convergent, discriminative) and reliability were assessed.ResultsAutomated FTSS and TUG tests demonstrated strong concurrent validity with therapist measurements (r = 0.813 and 0.915) and high discriminative accuracy for fall history (AUC = 0.941 and 0.864). Depth camera-based FTSS vertical velocity was significantly lower in participants with a fall history (p < 0.001). TST sway metrics showed limited discriminative validity. The system showed good to excellent test-retest reliability. In an age-stratified analysis of older adults (≥65 years), AFTSS time and the AUC-weighted composite score demonstrated acceptable discrimination for retrospective fall history (AUC = 0.892 and 0.867, respectively)ConclusionsThe depth camera system showed promise as a valid and reliable tool for objective quantification of performance on fall-risk-related functional tests, particularly FTSS and TUG, when benchmarked against therapist-administered measurements. Discriminative findings against retrospective fall history should be interpreted as exploratory, and larger prospective studies are required before clinical screening thresholds can be recommended.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06519864).
期刊介绍:
Technology and Health Care is intended to serve as a forum for the presentation of original articles and technical notes, observing rigorous scientific standards. Furthermore, upon invitation, reviews, tutorials, discussion papers and minisymposia are featured. The main focus of THC is related to the overlapping areas of engineering and medicine. The following types of contributions are considered:
1.Original articles: New concepts, procedures and devices associated with the use of technology in medical research and clinical practice are presented to a readership with a widespread background in engineering and/or medicine. In particular, the clinical benefit deriving from the application of engineering methods and devices in clinical medicine should be demonstrated. Typically, full length original contributions have a length of 4000 words, thereby taking duly into account figures and tables.
2.Technical Notes and Short Communications: Technical Notes relate to novel technical developments with relevance for clinical medicine. In Short Communications, clinical applications are shortly described. 3.Both Technical Notes and Short Communications typically have a length of 1500 words.
Reviews and Tutorials (upon invitation only): Tutorial and educational articles for persons with a primarily medical background on principles of engineering with particular significance for biomedical applications and vice versa are presented. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of topics.
4.Minisymposia (upon invitation only): Under the leadership of a Special Editor, controversial or important issues relating to health care are highlighted and discussed by various authors.
5.Letters to the Editors: Discussions or short statements (not indexed).