ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Comparing Gait Trials with Greedy Template Matching.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diverse Gait Dataset: Gait Segmentation Using Inertial Sensors for Pedestrian Localization with Different Genders, Heights and Walking Speeds.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A topological data analysis-based method for gait signals with an application to the study of multiple sclerosis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Non-Linear Template-Based Approach for the Study of Locomotion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Personalized Template-Based Step Detection From Inertial Measurement Units Signals in Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Postadychute-AG, Detection, and Prevention of the Risk of Falling Among Elderly People in Nursing Homes: Protocol of a Multicentre and Prospective Intervention Study.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gait assessment and quantification have received an increased interest in recent years. Embedded technologies and low-cost sensors can be used for the longitudinal follow-up of various populations (neurological diseases, elderly, etc.). However, the comparison of two gait trials remains a tricky question as standard gait features may prove to be insufficient in some cases. This article describes a new algorithm for comparing two gait trials recorded with inertial measurement units (IMUs). This algorithm uses a library of step templates extracted from one trial and attempts to detect similar steps in the second trial through a greedy template matching approach. The output of our method is a similarity index (SId) comprised between 0 and 1 that reflects the similarity between the patterns observed in both trials. Results on healthy and multiple sclerosis subjects show that this new comparison tool can be used for both inter-individual comparison and longitudinal follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.