ArticlePloS one2022
A deep-learning approach for automatically detecting gait-events based on foot-marker kinematics in children with cerebral palsy-Which markers work best for which gait patterns?
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review of AI-Based Approaches for Detecting Autism Traits Using Voice and Behavioral Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Scoping Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Marker-Based Clinical Gait Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Estimating Ground Reaction Forces from Gait Kinematics in Cerebral Palsy: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuromotor pathologies often cause motor deficits and deviations from typical locomotion, reducing the quality of life. Clinical gait analysis is used to effectively classify these motor deficits to gain deeper insights into resulting walking behaviours. To allow the ensemble averaging of spatio-temporal metrics across individuals during walking, gait events, such as initial contact (IC) or toe-off (TO), are extracted through either manual annotation based on video data, or through force thresholds using force plates. This study developed a deep-learning long short-term memory (LSTM) approach to detect IC and TO automatically based on foot-marker kinematics of 363 cerebral palsy subjects (age: 11.8 ± 3.2). These foot-marker kinematics, including 3D positions and velocities of the markers located on the hallux (HLX), calcaneus (HEE), distal second metatarsal (TOE), and proximal fifth metatarsal (PMT5), were extracted retrospectively from standard barefoot gait analysis sessions. Different input combinations of these four foot-markers were evaluated across three gait subgroups (IC with the heel, midfoot, or forefoot). For the overall group, our approach detected 89.7% of ICs within 16ms of the true event with a 18.5% false alarm rate. For TOs, only 71.6% of events were detected with a 33.8% false alarm rate. While the TOE|HEE marker combination performed well across all subgroups for IC detection, optimal performance for TO detection required different input markers per subgroup with performance differences of 5-10%. Thus, deep-learning LSTM based detection of IC events using the TOE|HEE markers offers an automated alternative to avoid operator-dependent and laborious manual annotation, as well as the limited step coverage and inability to measure assisted walking for force plate-based detection of IC events.
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.