ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Toward a unified gait freeze index: a standardized benchmark for clinical and regulatory evaluations.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Freezing of Gait (FOG) is a disabling motor symptom that affects a majority of individuals with advanced Parkinson's disease, severely limiting mobility, independence, and quality of life. Automatic methods for detecting FOG using the freeze index (FI) have been widely proposed to systematically monitor FOG in real life and guide therapy optimizations. However, methods to estimate the FI have relied on a broad range of measurement technologies and computational methodologies, often lacking mathematical rigor. The inconsistency across studies has made it difficult to directly compare results or draw definitive conclusions. This lack of standardization has severely hindered the acceptance of FI by regulatory agencies as a reproducible, robust, effective and safe measure on which to base further developments. In this study, we formalize the definition of the FI and propose a rigorous, explicit estimation algorithm, which may serve as a standard for future applications. This standardization provides a consistent and reliable benchmark. We also provide an overview of existing FI estimation methods, discuss their limitations, and compare each one of them with the proposed standard. Our method demonstrates improved performance compared to existing approaches while effectively mitigating the risk of divergent outcomes, which could otherwise lead to unforeseen and potentially hazardous consequences in real-world applications. Our algorithm is made available as open-source Python code, promoting accessibility and reproducibility.
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.