ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Flexible Machine Learning Algorithms for Clinical Gait Assessment Tools.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventional Feasibility Study Investigating Virtual Reality-Based Gait Assessment With Orthoses in People With Multiple Sclerosis: A Study Protocol.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Automatic gait analysis in canines using computer vision.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Status of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing Rare Disease Gait Classification through Data Balancing and Generative AI: Insights from Hereditary Cerebellar Ataxia.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current gold standard of gait diagnostics is dependent on large, expensive motion-capture laboratories and highly trained clinical and technical staff. Wearable sensor systems combined with machine learning may help to improve the accessibility of objective gait assessments in a broad clinical context. However, current algorithms lack flexibility and require large training datasets with tedious manual labelling of data. The current study tests the validity of a novel machine learning algorithm for automated gait partitioning of laboratory-based and sensor-based gait data. The developed artificial intelligence tool was used in patients with a central neurological lesion and severe gait impairments. To build the novel algorithm, 2% and 3% of the entire dataset (567 and 368 steps in total, respectively) were required for assessments with laboratory equipment and inertial measurement units. The mean errors of machine learning-based gait partitions were 0.021 s for the laboratory-based datasets and 0.034 s for the sensor-based datasets. Combining reinforcement learning with a deep neural network allows significant reduction in the size of the training datasets to <5%. The low number of required training data provides end-users with a high degree of flexibility. Non-experts can easily adjust the developed algorithm and modify the training library depending on the measurement system and clinical population.
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.