ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Simplification of Mobility Tests and Data Processing to Increase Applicability of Wearable Sensors as Diagnostic Tools for Parkinson's Disease.
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.
- Applying Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning to the Diagnostic Challenge of Distinguishing Parkinson's Disease from Other Forms of Parkinsonism.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Machine Learning and Statistical Analyses of Sensor Data Reveal Variability Between Repeated Trials in Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Multipopulation Whale Optimization-Based Feature Selection Algorithm and Its Application in Human Fall Detection Using Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative mobility analysis using wearable sensors, while promising as a diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease (PD), is not commonly applied in clinical settings. Major obstacles include uncertainty regarding the best protocol for instrumented mobility testing and subsequent data processing, as well as the added workload and complexity of this multi-step process. To simplify sensor-based mobility testing in diagnosing PD, we analyzed data from 262 PD participants and 50 controls performing several motor tasks wearing a sensor on their lower back containing a triaxial accelerometer and a triaxial gyroscope. Using ensembles of heterogeneous machine learning models incorporating a range of classifiers trained on a set of sensor features, we show that our models effectively differentiate between participants with PD and controls, both for mixed-stage PD (92.6% accuracy) and a group selected for mild PD only (89.4% accuracy). Omitting algorithmic segmentation of complex mobility tasks decreased the diagnostic accuracy of our models, as did the inclusion of kinesiological features. Feature importance analysis revealed that Timed Up and Go (TUG) tasks to contribute the highest-yield predictive features, with only minor decreases in accuracy for models based on cognitive TUG as a single mobility task. Our machine learning approach facilitates major simplification of instrumented mobility testing without compromising predictive performance.
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.