Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40660342›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025

A toolbox for the identification of foot-floor contact sequences to analyze atypical gait cycles in a real-life scenario: application on patients after proximal femur fracture and healthy elderly.

Marco Ghislieri, Nicolas Leo, Marco Caruso, Clemens Becker, Andrea Cereatti, Valentina Agostini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marco GhislieriDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 10129, Italy. marco.ghislieri@polito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7626-1563
Nicolas LeoDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 10129, Italy.
Marco CarusoDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 10129, Italy.
Clemens BeckerUnit Digital Geriatrie, Geriatrisches Zentrum, Universitätsklinikum, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andrea CereattiDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 10129, Italy.
Valentina AgostiniDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 10129, Italy.

Funding

European Union - NextGenerationEU ECS00000036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe detection of gait subphases is pivotal for a comprehensive assessment of gait quality, playing a key role in different applications such as rehabilitation programs, movement disorder diagnostics, and fall prevention strategies. However, few methods provide dynamic subphase segmentation relying solely on plantar pressure signals in real-life, unsupervised conditions. This work aims to present an open-source, flexible toolbox for the automatic detection of gait subphases, and to introduce novel digital gait biomarkers derived from subphase analysis, enabling effective monitoring of frail patients in real-world, challenging environments.

methodsA novel MATLAB toolbox for decoding gait subphases from plantar pressure signals (PIN2GPI - from Pressure INsoles to Gait Phase Identification) is described and made publicly available. To test our algorithm, the open database provided by the Mobilise-D consortium is used, focusing on walking bouts recorded through pressure insoles in an unsupervised setting during free activities of daily living (lasting approximately 2.5 h). We extracted relevant gait parameters from a population of 32 elderly subjects: 14 frail patients after Proximal Femur Fracture (PFF) and 18 older Healthy Adults (HA).

resultsOn average, PFF patients showed, with respect to HA, a reduced number of gait cycles (1059 ± 201 vs. 2076 ± 246; p = 0.006), percentage of time spent walking (9.1 ± 1.7% vs. 15.0 ± 1.9%; p = 0.04), and cadence (39.2 ± 2.0 cycles/min vs. 45.7 ± 1.2 cycles/min; p = 0.007), as well as an increased percentage of atypical gait cycles on the worst side (8.8 ± 4.1%/min vs. 0.8 ± 0.1%/min; p = 0.007), interlimb gait asymmetries in flat-foot contact (6.9 ± 1.2% of the Gait Cycle (%GC) vs. 2.5 ± 0.4%GC; p = 0.007) and swing subphase durations (6.5 ± 1.6%GC vs. 1.6 ± 0.3%GC; p = 0.0003).

conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of gait subphase analysis as a valuable tool for pinpointing key factors related to walking quality from real-life measurements collected during unsupervised monitoring of frail subjects, paving the way to more precise and objective gait assessment in real-life scenarios.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesFootGaitGait AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsFemaleFrail ElderlyHumansMalePressureProximal Femoral FracturesFall preventionFoot-pressure insolesGait phasesHip fractureRehabilitationWalking

Identifiers

PMID40660342
PMCPMC12257802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.