ArticleStatistics in biosciences2019
Differentiating Between Walking and Stair Climbing Using Raw Accelerometry Data.
Article in Statistics in biosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A biomimetic, ultralow-power edge-AI-empowered and self-sustaining gait analysis system.Science advances · 2026Article
- Walking fingerprinting.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study on the Influence of Undersampling and Oversampling Techniques for the Classification of Physical Activities Using an Imbalanced Accelerometer Dataset.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Wearable accelerometers provide an objective measure of human physical activity. They record high frequency unlabeled three-dimensional time series data. We extract meaningful features from the raw accelerometry data and based on them develop and evaluate a classification method for the detection of walking and its sub-classes, i.e. level walking, descending stairs and ascending stairs. Our methodology is tested on a sample of 32 middle-aged subjects for whom we extracted features based on the Fourier and wavelet transforms. We build subject-specific and group-level classification models utilizing a tree-based methodology. We evaluate the effects of sensor location and tuning parameters on the classification accuracy of the tree models. In the group-level classification setting, we propose a robust feature inter-subject normalization and evaluate its performance compared to unnormalized data. The overall classification accuracy for the three activities at the subject-specific level was on average 87.6%, with the ankle-worn accelerometers showing the best performance with an average accuracy 90.5%. At the group-level, the average overall classification accuracy for the three activities using the normalized features was 80.2% compared to 72.3% for the unnormalized features. In summary, a framework is provided for better use and feature extraction from raw accelerometry data to differentiate among different walking modalities as well as considerations for study design.
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.