ArticleScientific reports2024
Measuring gait parameters from a single chest-worn accelerometer in healthy individuals: a validation study.
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.
- A Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Literature Algorithms for Physical Activity Endpoints from a Wrist Accelerometer in Free-Living Conditions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond the Leaderboard: Evaluating the Robustness of Deep Learning Models for Detecting Freezing of Gait.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Generation of a Free-Living Ground-Truth Validation Dataset for Wearable Measures of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, Sleep, and Heart Rate in Adults (OxWEARS): Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Effect of supervised exercise training on objectively measured physical activity in patients during anthracycline therapy.JSAMS plus · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly being adopted in clinical trials, as they enable objective evaluations of health parameters in free-living environments. Although lumbar accelerometers notably provide reliable gait parameters, embedding accelerometers in chest devices, already used for vital signs monitoring, could capture a more comprehensive picture of participants' wellbeing, while reducing the burden of multiple devices. Here we assess the validity of gait parameters measured from a chest accelerometer. Twenty healthy adults (13 females, mean ± sd age: 33.9 ± 9.1 years) instrumented with lumbar and chest accelerometers underwent in-lab and outside-lab walking tasks, while monitored with reference devices (an instrumented mat, and a 6-accelerometers set). Gait parameters were extracted from chest and lumbar accelerometers using our open-source Scikit Digital Health gait (SKDH-gait) algorithm, and compared against reference values via Bland-Altman plots, Pearson's correlation, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Mixed effects regression models were performed to investigate the effect of device, task, and their interaction. Gait parameters derived from chest and lumbar accelerometers showed no significant difference and excellent agreement across all tasks, as well as good-to-excellent agreement and strong correlation against reference values, thus supporting the deployment of a single multimodal chest device in clinical trials, to simultaneously measure gait and vital signs.Trial Registration: The study was reviewed and approved by the Advarra IRB (protocol number: Pro00043100).
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.