Variations in User Implementation of the CORA Rating Metric.

Q2 Medicine
Devon L Albert
{"title":"Variations in User Implementation of the CORA Rating Metric.","authors":"Devon L Albert","doi":"10.4271/2020-22-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The CORA rating metric is frequently used in the field of injury biomechanics to compare the similarity of response time histories. However, subjectivity exists within the CORA metric in the form of user-customizable parameters that give the metric the flexibility to be used for a variety of applications. How these parameters are customized is not always reported in the literature, and it is unknown how these customizations affect the CORA scores. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how variations in the CORA parameters affect the resulting similarity scores. A literature review was conducted to determine how the CORA parameters are commonly customized within the literature. Then, CORA scores for two datasets were calculated using the most common parameter customizations and the default parameters. Differences between the CORA scores using customized and default parameters were statistically significant for all customizations. Furthermore, most customizations produced score increases relative to the default settings. The use of standard deviation corridors and exclusion of the corridor component were found to produce the largest score differences. The observed differences demonstrated the need for researchers to exercise transparency when using customized parameters in CORA analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":35289,"journal":{"name":"Stapp car crash journal","volume":"64 ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stapp car crash journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4271/2020-22-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The CORA rating metric is frequently used in the field of injury biomechanics to compare the similarity of response time histories. However, subjectivity exists within the CORA metric in the form of user-customizable parameters that give the metric the flexibility to be used for a variety of applications. How these parameters are customized is not always reported in the literature, and it is unknown how these customizations affect the CORA scores. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how variations in the CORA parameters affect the resulting similarity scores. A literature review was conducted to determine how the CORA parameters are commonly customized within the literature. Then, CORA scores for two datasets were calculated using the most common parameter customizations and the default parameters. Differences between the CORA scores using customized and default parameters were statistically significant for all customizations. Furthermore, most customizations produced score increases relative to the default settings. The use of standard deviation corridors and exclusion of the corridor component were found to produce the largest score differences. The observed differences demonstrated the need for researchers to exercise transparency when using customized parameters in CORA analyses.

用户实现CORA评级度量的变化。
CORA评级指标在损伤生物力学领域中经常被用于比较反应时间历史的相似性。然而,主观性以用户可自定义参数的形式存在于CORA度量中,这些参数为度量提供了用于各种应用程序的灵活性。这些参数是如何定制的,在文献中并不总是报道,而且这些定制如何影响CORA分数也是未知的。因此,本研究的目的是评估CORA参数的变化如何影响所得的相似性得分。进行了文献回顾,以确定在文献中如何通常自定义CORA参数。然后,使用最常见的参数自定义和默认参数计算两个数据集的CORA分数。使用自定义参数和默认参数的CORA分数之间的差异在所有自定义参数中都具有统计学意义。此外,大多数自定义产生的分数相对于默认设置有所增加。使用标准偏差廊道和排除廊道成分会产生最大的得分差异。观察到的差异表明,在CORA分析中使用自定义参数时,研究人员需要行使透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Stapp car crash journal
Stapp car crash journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信