Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33901209›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Fall risk classification for people with lower extremity amputations using random forests and smartphone sensor features from a 6-minute walk test.

Kyle J F Daines, Natalie Baddour, Helena Burger, Andrej Bavec, Edward D Lemaire

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Gait Monitoring and Analysis: A Mathematical Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kyle J F DainesOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8047-6567
Natalie BaddourDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7025-7501
Helena BurgerUniversity Rehabilitation Institute, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Andrej BavecUniversity Rehabilitation Institute, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Edward D LemaireOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ljubljana · SIUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fall-risk classification is a challenging but necessary task to enable the recommendation of preventative programs for individuals identified at risk for falling. Existing research has primarily focused on older adults, with no predictive fall-risk models for lower limb amputees, despite their greater likelihood of fall-risk than older adults. In this study, 89 amputees with varying degrees of lower limb amputation were asked if they had fallen in the past 6 months. Those who reported at least one fall were considered a fall risk. Each participant performed a 6 minute walk test (6MWT) with an Android smartphone placed in a holder located on the back of the pelvis. A fall-risk classification method was developed using data from sensors within the smartphone. The Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Center Walk Test app captured accelerometer and gyroscope data during the 6MWT. From this data, foot strikes were identified, and 248 features were extracted from the collection of steps. Steps were segmented into turn and straight walking, and four different data sets were created: turn steps, straightaway steps, straightaway and turn steps, and all steps. From these, three feature selection techniques (correlation-based feature selection, relief F, and extra trees classifier ensemble) were used to eliminate redundant or ineffective features. Each feature subset was tested with a random forest classifier and optimized for the best number of trees. The best model used turn data, with three features selected by Correlation-based feature selection (CFS), and used 500 trees in a random forest classifier. The resulting metrics were 81.3% accuracy, 57.2% sensitivity, 94.9% specificity, a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.587, and an F1 score of 0.83. Since the outcomes are comparable to metrics achieved by existing clinical tests, the classifier may be viable for use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAmputation, SurgicalAgedAmputeesEquipment DesignFemaleHumansLower ExtremityMaleMiddle AgedSmartphoneWalk Test

Identifiers

PMID33901209
PMCPMC8075234
OpenAlexW3083828561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.