Towards an Assisted Frailty Assessment System for Elderly People (AFASEP)

THE PAPER SUBMITTED CAN BE READ AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: LINK TO THE PAPER

Aniol Civit a, Antonio Andriella b, Maite Antonio c , Casimiro Javierre d and Guillem Alenyà a.

a Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial, CSIC-UPC, C/ Llorens i Artigas 4-6, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

b PAL Robotics, C/ de Pujades, 77, 08005 Barcelona, Spain

c Oncohematogeriatrics Unit, Institut Català d’Oncologia, IDIBELL Hospitalet, 08908 Barcelona, Spain

d Unitat de Fisiologia. Departament de Ciències Fisiològiques II, Facultat de Medicina (Campus de Bellvitge), Ctra. Feixa Llarga, s/n. 08907 L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract: Frailty assessment plays a pivotal role in healthcare, particularly in the context of treatment decisions for older adults, including those in oncology. Currently, the process involves laborious and time-consuming exercises measured using stopwatches. This paper introduces a novel methodology that employs depth camera-derived skeletal data to measure standard total time and additional frailty-related metrics. The study presents results from a cohort of 22 elderly participants, with assessments conducted by both medical professionals and our robotic system. The findings demonstrate the precision of our approach in aiding physicians in frailty assessment. Moreover, we establish that the supplementary metrics we propose contribute to enhanced frailty evaluations. This research represents a significant stride towards the advancement of social robotics in healthcare, offering potential improvements in patient care and clinical decision-making.

Short Introduction: In this work, it is defined and validated a method to automate the commonly used Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests. The method provides the times and additional and frailty-related metrics that cannot be seen with the human eye. To do so, a ZED2i camera with its SDK is used to extract and track the skeleton of the patient during the test execution.

The different individual tests consist on:

A distribution example for the tests is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Space distribution and representation for the execution of the SPPB and TUG tests.

 

Tracking System Validation

 

Here, the obtained metrics from the tests, captured with the ZED2i camera using its SDK, are validated using the OptiTrack system as a ground truth. To conduct this validation, 7 volunteers performed each of the tests three times wearing the OptiTrack suit with 41 markers. The skeleton 3D points were recorded using both ZED SDK and Mediapipe algorithms. The volunteers were asked to vary their behavior in each run of the tests to have more variance between the samples. The following results represent the metrics of the profitable runs where metrics could be acquired.

 

Test Metric Mean Optitrack Mean Camera MAPE (%)
Gait Speed Time (s) 4.71 4.76 4.73
Gait Speed Left Stride Length (m) 1.25 1.16 8.41
Gait Speed Left Stride Velocity (m/s) 0.99 0.96 5.12
Gait Speed Left Step Length (m) 0.67 0.52 22.26
Gait Speed Left Step Velocity (m/s) 1.07 0.93 15.49
Gait Speed Right Stride Length (m) 1.24 1.13 9.53
Gait Speed Right Stride Velocity (m/s) 0.99 0.97 5.34
Gait Speed Right Step Length (m) 0.66 0.67 12.26
Gait Speed Right Step Velocity (m/s) 1.05 1.09 11.32
Gait Speed Range Balance (m) 0.05 0.08 68.74
Gait Speed Mean Balance (m) 0.03 0.04 66.02
Gait Speed Number Steps 7.11 7.68 11.11
TUG Time (s) 9.29 9.36 2.03
TUG Left Stride Length (m) 1.11 1 12.41
TUG Left Stride Velocity (m/s) 0.86 0.81 9.5
TUG Left Step Length (m) 0.59 0.56 13.09
TUG Left Step Velocity (m/s) 0.92 0.91 9.73
TUG Right Stride Length (m) 1.06 1.02 9.27
TUG Right Stride Velocity (m/s) 0.82 0.79 6.52
TUG Right Step Length (m) 0.59 0.52 13.54
TUG Right Step Velocity (m/s) 0.94 0.8 15.41
TUG Range Balance (m) 0.57 0.48 17.47
TUG Mean Balance (m) 0.42 0.33 20.55
TUG Number Steps 14 13.78 9.52
Standing Balance Time Together (s) 10 10 0
Standing Balance Time Semi-Tandem (s) 10 10 0
Standing Balance Time Tandem (s) 10 10 0
Standing Balance Box Together (m3) 0.0021 0.0019 14.98
Standing Balance Box Semi-Tandem (m3) 0.0001 0.0002 69.51
Standing Balance Box Tandem (m3) 0.0011 0.0008 33.87
5 Times Sit-Stand Time (s) 21.83 22.04 1.2
5 Times Sit-Stand Fatigue (s) 1.55 1.29 24.91
5 Times Sit-Stand Number Sequences 5 5 0

Validation Results

The individual samples for each of the metrics are plotted below. Every plot contains the values of the same metric for all the different runs. The plots compare the value acquired with the ZED SDK (y-axis) and the OptiTrack (x-axis). The linear regression is also plotted in each graphic (orange line), with the identity (green line) which can be used as a reference to check the proper fit of the data. The plots also show the precision and the repeatability of the data, when the samples are closer to the identity line, they are considered more precise.

 

Gait Speed Results

Time (s)

Left Stride Length (m)

Left Stride Velocity (m/s)

Left Step Length (m)

Left Step Velocity (m/s)

Right Stride Length (m)

Right Stride Velocity (m/s)

Right Step Length (m)

Right Step Velocity (m/s)

Balance Ranges (m)

Balance Mean (m)

Number Steps

TUG Results

Time (s)

Left Stride Length (m)

Left Stride Velocity (m/s)

Left Step Length (m)

Left Step Velocity (m/s)

Right Stride Length (m)

Right Stride Velocity (m/s)

Right Step Length (m)

Right Step Velocity (m/s)

Balance Ranges (m)

Balance Mean (m)

Number Steps

Standing Balance Results

Box Together (m3)

Box Semi-Tandem (m3)

Box Tandem (m3)

5 Times Sit-Stand Results

Time (s)

Fatigue (s)