ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
IMU-Based Real-Time Estimation of Gait Phase Using Multi-Resolution Neural Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Edge AI-Based Gait-Phase Detection for Closed-Loop Neuromodulation in SCI Mice.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Subject-independent gait activity recognition using DSAF: dual-stream IMU-EMG attention fusion with asymmetric temporal encoding and physiological complementarity weighting.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2026Article
- A Review of Gait Analysis Using Gyroscopes and Inertial Measurement Units.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work presents a real-time gait phase estimator using thigh- and shank-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs). A multi-rate convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to estimate gait phase for a dataset of 16 participants walking on an instrumented treadmill with speeds varying between 0.1 to 1.9 m/s, and conditions such as asymmetric walking, stop-start, and sudden speed changes. One-subject-out cross-validation was used to assess the robustness of the estimator to the gait patterns of new individuals. The proposed model had a spatial root mean square error of 5.00±1.65%, and a temporal mean absolute error of 2.78±0.97% evaluated at the heel strike. A second cross-validation was performed to show that leaving out any of the walking conditions from the training dataset did not result in significant performance degradation. A 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that there was no significant increase in spatial or temporal error when testing on the abnormal walking conditions left out of the training set. The results of the two cross-validations demonstrate that the proposed model generalizes well across new participants, various walking speeds, and gait patterns, showcasing its potential for use in investigating patient populations with pathological gaits and facilitating robot-assisted walking.
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.