Low‐dimensional dynamical characterization of human performance of cancer patients using motion data

Background: Biomechanical characterization of human performance with respect to fatigue and fitness is relevant in many settings, however is usually limited to either fully qualitative assessments or invasive methods which require a significant experimental setup consisting of numerous sensors, force plates, and motion detectors. Qualitative assessments are difficult to standardize due to their intrinsic subjective nature, on the other hand, invasive methods provide reliable metrics but are not feasible for large scale applications. Methods: Presented here is a dynamical toolset for detecting performance groups using a non‐invasive system based on the Microsoft Kinect motion capture sensor, and a case study of 37 cancer patients performing two clinically monitored tasks before and after therapy regimens. Dynamical features are extracted from the motion time series data and evaluated based on their ability to i) cluster patients into coherent fitness groups using unsupervised learning algorithms and to ii) predict Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status via supervised learning. Findings: The unsupervised patient clustering is comparable to clustering based on physician assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status in that they both have similar concordance with change in weight before and after therapy as well as unexpected hospitalizations throughout the study. The extracted dynamical features can predict physician, coordinator, and patient Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status with an accuracy of approximately 80%. Interpretation: The non‐invasive Microsoft Kinect sensor and the proposed dynamical toolset comprised of data preprocessing, feature extraction, dimensionality reduction, and machine learning offers a low‐cost and general method for performance segregation and can complement existing qualitative clinical assessments. Highlights:Patients' self‐assigned performance scores vary from physician assigned scores.Clinical coordinators' scorings correlate with weight change and hospitalizations.A non‐invasive motion capture based performance assessment is proposed.Kinematic exercise data can predict patient and physician assigned performance.Non‐invasive method can be trained to assign performance scores quantitatively.

[1]  Sheldon R Simon,et al.  Quantification of human motion: gait analysis-benefits and limitations to its application to clinical problems. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  Tao Liu,et al.  Gait Analysis Using Wearable Sensors , 2012, Sensors.

[3]  Kaat Desloovere,et al.  Do dynamic and static clinical measurements correlate with gait analysis parameters in children with cerebral palsy? , 2006, Gait & posture.

[4]  E. McFadden,et al.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group , 1982, American journal of clinical oncology.

[5]  K. Roszkowski,et al.  Lung cancer in women: age, smoking, histology, performance status, stage, initial treatment and survival. Population-based study of 20 561 cases. , 2002, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  Carlo Frigo,et al.  Multichannel SEMG in clinical gait analysis: a review and state-of-the-art. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  Dominik Péus,et al.  Appraisal of the Karnofsky Performance Status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[8]  Rachid Aissaoui,et al.  New Accelerometric Method to Discriminate Between Asymptomatic Subjects and Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis During 3-D Gait , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  R. Saito,et al.  Performance Status and Smoking Status Are Independent Favorable Prognostic Factors for Survival in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis of 26,957 Patients with NSCLC , 2010, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[10]  L. Sharples,et al.  Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[11]  Ming Li,et al.  Mining Human Mobility to Quantify Performance Status , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW).

[12]  Pedro M. Domingos A few useful things to know about machine learning , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[13]  Armin Shahrokni,et al.  Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG Performance Status Assessments with New Technologies , 2016, Journal of oncology.

[14]  Eamonn J. Keogh,et al.  Everything you know about Dynamic Time Warping is Wrong , 2004 .

[15]  M. Tamburini,et al.  Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. , 1996, European journal of cancer.