Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35632266›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Deep Learning Approach for Gait Event Detection from a Single Shank-Worn IMU: Validation in Healthy and Neurological Cohorts.

Robbin Romijnders, Elke Warmerdam, Clint Hansen, Gerhard Schmidt, Walter Maetzler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Explainable and Subject-Independent VOSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Gait Event Detection From Thigh Segment Kinematics in Children With Crouch Gait.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Composite activity type and stride-specific energy expenditure estimation model for thigh-worn accelerometry.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    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.

Robbin RomijndersDepartment of Neurology, Kiel University, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2507-0924
Elke WarmerdamInnovative Implant Development (Fracture Healing), Division of Surgery, Saarland University, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2343-7761
Clint HansenDepartment of Neurology, Kiel University, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4813-3868
Gerhard SchmidtInstitute of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, 24143 Kiel, Germany.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurology, Kiel University, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5945-4694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many algorithms use 3D accelerometer and/or gyroscope data from inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors to detect gait events (i.e., initial and final foot contact). However, these algorithms often require knowledge about sensor orientation and use empirically derived thresholds. As alignment cannot always be controlled for in ambulatory assessments, methods are needed that require little knowledge on sensor location and orientation, e.g., a convolutional neural network-based deep learning model. Therefore, 157 participants from healthy and neurologically diseased cohorts walked 5 m distances at slow, preferred, and fast walking speed, while data were collected from IMUs on the left and right ankle and shank. Gait events were detected and stride parameters were extracted using a deep learning model and an optoelectronic motion capture (OMC) system for reference. The deep learning model consisted of convolutional layers using dilated convolutions, followed by two independent fully connected layers to predict whether a time step corresponded to the event of initial contact (IC) or final contact (FC), respectively. Results showed a high detection rate for both initial and final contacts across sensor locations (recall ≥92%, precision ≥97%). Time agreement was excellent as witnessed from the median time error (0.005 s) and corresponding inter-quartile range (0.020 s). The extracted stride-specific parameters were in good agreement with parameters derived from the OMC system (maximum mean difference 0.003 s and corresponding maximum limits of agreement (-0.049 s, 0.051 s) for a 95% confidence level). Thus, the deep learning approach was considered a valid approach for detecting gait events and extracting stride-specific parameters with little knowledge on exact IMU location and orientation in conditions with and without walking pathologies due to neurological diseases.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAnkleFootGaitHumansWalkingdeep learninggaitgait eventsinertial measurement unit

Identifiers

PMID35632266
PMCPMC9143761

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.