ArticleDigital health
Smart insole-based abnormal gait identification: Deep sequential networks and feature ablation study.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Gait analysis plays a pivotal role in evaluating walking abilities, with recent advancements in digital health stressing the importance of efficient data collection methods. This study aims to classify nine gait types including one normal and eight abnormal gaits, using sequential network-based models and diverse feature combinations obtained from insole sensors. Methods: The dataset was collected using insole sensors from subjects performing 15 m walking with designated gait types. The sensors incorporated pressure sensors and inertial measurement units (IMUs), along with the center of pressure engineered from the pressure readings. A number of deep learning architectures were evaluated for their ability to classify the gait types, focusing on feature sets including temporal parameters, statistical features of pressure signals, center of pressure data, and IMU data. Ablation studies were also conducted to assess the impact of combining features from different modalities. Results: Our results demonstrate that models incorporating IMU features outperform those using different combinations of modalities including individual feature sets, with the top-performing models achieving F1-scores of up to 90% in sample-wise classification and 92% in subject-wise classification. Additionally, an ablation study reveals the importance of considering diverse feature modalities, including temporal parameters, statistical features from pressure signals, center of pressure data, and IMU data, for comprehensive gait classification. Conclusion: Overall, this study successfully developed deep sequential models that effectively classify nine different gait types, with the ablation study underscoring the potential for integrating features from diverse domains to enhance clinical applications, such as intervention for gait-related disorders.
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.