ArticlePloS one2022
Improved heat coefficients for joint-space metabolic energy expenditure model during level, uphill, and downhill walking.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimation of walking energy expenditure using a single sacrum-mounted IMU based on biomechanically-informed machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of unilateral knee restraint on symmetry adaptation and double-support phase dynamic stability during split-belt walking.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A previously developed joint-space metabolic energy expenditure (MEE) model includes subject-specific parameters and was validated using level walking gait data. In this work, we determine how well this joint-space model performs during various walking grades (-8%, 0%, and 8%) at 0.8 m·s ⁻1 and 1.3 m·s ⁻1 using published gait data in the literature. In response to those results, we formulate an optimization problem and solve it through the particle swam method plus fmincon function in MATLAB to identify a new optimal weighting parameter set for each grade that produces more accurate predicted MEE and we compare our new findings with seven other MEE models in the literature. The current study matched the measured MEE the best with the lowest RMSE values for level (0.45 J·kg ⁻1·m ⁻1) and downhill (0.82 J·kg ⁻1·m ⁻1) walking and the third lowest RMSE value for uphill (1.56 J·kg ⁻1·m ⁻1) walking, where another MEE model, Looney et al., had the lowest RMSE for uphill (1.27 J·kg ⁻1·m ⁻1) walking. Bland-Altman plots and three independent-samples t-tests show that there was no statistical significant difference between experimentally measured MEE and estimated MEE during the three walking conditions, meaning that the three new optimal weighting parameter sets can be used with 6 degree of freedom (DOF) lower extremity motion data to better estimate whole body MEE in those scenarios. We believe that this work is a step towards identifying a single robust parameter set that allows for accurate estimation of MEE during any task, with the potential to mitigate a limitation of indirect calorimetry requiring lengthy steady state motion.
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.