ArticleDigital biomarkers2020
Robust Step Detection from Different Waist-Worn Sensor Positions: Implications for Clinical Studies.
Article in Digital biomarkers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Passive sensing of gait and medication-related fluctuations in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Real-World Gait Detection Using a Wrist-Worn Inertial Sensor: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A Single-Sensor Approach to Quantify Gait in Patients with Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Technical validation of real-world monitoring of gait: a multicentric observational study.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- A Comparative Evaluation of Inertial Sensors for Gait and Jump Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Robust Step Detection from Different Waist-Worn Sensor Positions: Implications for Clinical Studies.Digital biomarkers · 2020Article
- Article
- The Future of Digital Health: Meeting Report.Digital biomarkersArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analyzing human gait with inertial sensors provides valuable insights into a wide range of health impairments, including many musculoskeletal and neurological diseases. A representative and reliable assessment of gait requires continuous monitoring over long periods and ideally takes place in the subjects' habitual environment (real-world). An inconsistent sensor wearing position can affect gait characterization and influence clinical study results, thus clinical study protocols are typically highly proscriptive, instructing all participants to wear the sensor in a uniform manner. This restrictive approach improves data quality but reduces overall adherence. In this work, we analyze the impact of altering the sensor wearing position around the waist on sensor signal and step detection. We demonstrate that an asymmetrically worn sensor leads to additional odd-harmonic frequency components in the frequency spectrum. We propose a robust solution for step detection based on autocorrelation to overcome sensor position variation (sensitivity = 0.99, precision = 0.99). The proposed solution reduces the impact of inconsistent sensor positioning on gait characterization in clinical studies, thus providing more flexibility to protocol implementation and more freedom to participants to wear the sensor in the position most comfortable to them. This work is a first step towards truly position-agnostic gait assessment in clinical settings.
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.