ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluation of Patients' Levels of Walking Independence Using Inertial Sensors and Neural Networks in an Acute-Care Hospital.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MadgwickFall-Net: A Lightweight Dual-Frame Feature Fusion Network for Pre-Impact Fall Detection Using Wearable IMUs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate walking independence in acute-care hospital patients using neural networks based on acceleration and angular velocity from two walking tests. Forty patients underwent the 10-m walk test and the Timed Up-and-Go test at normal speed, with or without a cane. Physiotherapists divided the patients into two groups: 24 patients who were monitored or independent while walking with a cane or without aids in the ward, and 16 patients who were not. To classify these groups, the Transformer model analyzes the left gait cycle data from eight inertial sensors. The accuracy using all the sensor data was 0.836. When sensor data from the right ankle, right wrist, and left wrist were excluded, the accuracy decreased the most. When analyzing the data from these three sensors alone, the accuracy was 0.795. Further reducing the number of sensors to only the right ankle and wrist resulted in an accuracy of 0.736. This study demonstrates the potential of a neural network-based analysis of inertial sensor data for clinically assessing a patient's level of walking independence.
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.