ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of the Accuracy of Ground Reaction Force Component Estimation between Supervised Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods Using Pressure Insoles.
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.
- Prediction of Three-Dimensional Ground Reaction Forces in the Golf Swing Using Wearable Inertial Measurement Units and Biomimetic Deep Learning Models.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prediction of on-field rugby scrummaging contact forces from videos using artificial neural networks.PloS one · 2026Article
- Estimation of 3D Ground Reaction Force and 2D Center of Pressure Using Deep Learning and Load Cells Across Various Gait Conditions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
The three Ground Reaction Force (GRF) components can be estimated using pressure insole sensors. In this paper, we compare the accuracy of estimating GRF components for both feet using six methods: three Deep Learning (DL) methods (Artificial Neural Network, Long Short-Term Memory, and Convolutional Neural Network) and three Supervised Machine Learning (SML) methods (Least Squares, Support Vector Regression, and Random Forest (RF)). Data were collected from nine subjects across six activities: normal and slow walking, static with and without carrying a load, and two Manual Material Handling activities. This study has two main contributions: first, the estimation of GRF components (Fx, Fy, and Fz) during the six activities, two of which have never been studied; second, the comparison of the accuracy of GRF component estimation between the six methods for each activity. RF provided the most accurate estimation for static situations, with mean RMSE values of RMSE_Fx = 1.65 N, RMSE_Fy = 1.35 N, and RMSE_Fz = 7.97 N for the mean absolute values measured by the force plate (reference) RMSE_Fx = 14.10 N, RMSE_Fy = 3.83 N, and RMSE_Fz = 397.45 N. In our study, we found that RF, an SML method, surpassed the experimented DL methods.
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.