ArticleScientific reports2024
Classification of human walking context using a single-point accelerometer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Real-world walking and activity patterns in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the SMART-AGE trial.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026Article
- Emerging Integrating Approach to Sensors, Digital Signal Processing, Communication Systems, and Artificial Intelligence.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Reliability of Real-World Digital Mobility Outcomes in Older Adults After Hip Fracture: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Continuous Monitoring of Head Turns: Compliance, Kinematics, and Reliability of Wearable Sensing.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world walking data offers rich insights into a person's mobility. Yet, daily life variations can alter these patterns, making the data challenging to interpret. As such, it is essential to integrate context for the extraction of meaningful information from real-world movement data. In this work, we leveraged the relationship between the characteristics of a walking bout and context to build a classification algorithm to distinguish between indoor and outdoor walks. We used data from 20 participants wearing an accelerometer on the thigh over a week. Their walking bouts were isolated and labeled using GPS and self-reporting data. We trained and validated two machine learning models, random forest and ensemble Support Vector Machine, using a leave-one-participant-out validation scheme on 15 subjects. The 5 remaining subjects were used as a testing set to choose a final model. The chosen model achieved an accuracy of 0.941, an F1-score of 0.963, and an AUROC of 0.931. This validated model was then used to label the walks from a different dataset with 15 participants wearing the same accelerometer. Finally, we characterized the differences between indoor and outdoor walks using the ensemble of the data. We found that participants walked significantly faster, longer, and more continuously when walking outdoors compared to indoors. These results demonstrate how movement data alone can be used to obtain accurate information on important contextual factors. These factors can then be leveraged to enhance our understanding and interpretation of real-world movement data, providing deeper insights into a person's health.
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.