Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38721018›Full record

ReviewDigital biomarkers

Clustering Approaches for Gait Analysis within Neurological Disorders: A Narrative Review.

Jonas Hummel, Michael Schwenk, Daniel Seebacher, Philipp Barzyk, Joachim Liepert, Manuel Stein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Jonas HummelDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Michael SchwenkHuman Performance Research Centre, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Daniel SeebacherResearch and Development, Subsequent GmbH, Konstanz, Germany.
Philipp BarzykHuman Performance Research Centre, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Joachim LiepertNeurologische Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Allensbach, Germany.
Manuel SteinResearch and Development, Subsequent GmbH, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of neurological disorders is increasing, underscoring the importance of objective gait analysis to help clinicians identify specific deficits. Nevertheless, existing technological solutions for gait analysis often suffer from impracticality in daily clinical use, including excessive cost, time constraints, and limited processing capabilities. Summary: This review aims to evaluate existing techniques for clustering patients with the same neurological disorder to assist clinicians in optimizing treatment options. A narrative review of thirteen relevant studies was conducted, characterizing their methods, and evaluating them against seven criteria. Additionally, the results are summarized in two comprehensive tables. Recent approaches show promise; however, our results indicate that, overall, only three approaches display medium or high process maturity, and only two show high clinical applicability. Key Messages: Our findings highlight the necessity for advancements, specifically regarding the use of markerless optical tracking systems, the optimization of experimental plans, and the external validation of results. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of existing clustering techniques, bridging the gap between instrumented gait analysis and its real-world clinical utility. We encourage researchers to use our findings and those from other medical fields to enhance clustering techniques for patients with neurological disorders, facilitating the identification of disparities within groups and their extent, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical decision support systemsClusteringGait analysisInstrumented gait analysisNeurological disorders

Identifiers

PMID38721018
PMCPMC11078540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.