ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Gait characteristics in people with Friedreich ataxia: daily life versus clinic measures.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gait assessments in a clinical setting may not accurately reflect mobility in everyday life. To better understand gait during daily life, we compared measures that discriminated Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) from healthy control (HC) subjects in prescribed clinic tests and free, daily-life monitoring. Methods: We recruited 9 people with FRDA (median age: 20, IQR [12, 48] years). A comparative healthy control (HC) subject cohort of 9 was sampled using propensity matching on age (median age: 18 [13, 22] years). Subjects wore 3 inertial sensors (one each foot and lower back) in the laboratory during a 2-min walk at a natural pace, followed by 7 days of daily life. For daily life analysis, a total of 99,216 strides across 1,008 h of recording were included. Mann-Whitney U test and area under the curve (AUC) compared gait differences between FRDA and HC when assessed in the laboratory and daily life. Pairwise Wilcoxon tests also compared if participants exhibited different metric values between the two environments. Results: The FRDA group exhibited lower levels of daily activity. Measures that best discriminated gait characteristics of FRDA from HC differed between environments. Variation in elevation of the feet at midswing best discriminated in-clinic (Clinic AUC = 1, Home AUC = 0.69), whereas slow gait speed performed best in daily life (Home AUC = 1, Clinic AUC = 0.64). Of the 17 measures tested, 11 had an AUC > 0.8 in-clinic and 8 had an AUC >0.8 at home. Variability of swing time (Clinic AUC = 0.97, Home AUC = 0.94) and double-support time (Clinic AUC = 0.94, Home AUC = 0.94) were the most sensitive and specific for FRDA in both environments. Conclusion: Digital gait characteristics from inertial sensors are sensitive and specific for FRDA in both environments. However, different gait measures were more sensitive and specific during free-living versus prescribed gait, suggesting that in-clinic gait does not reflect daily life gait.
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.