Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40729395›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Evidence Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT) treatment recommendation and outcome prediction models to support decision-making based on clinical gait analysis data.

Michael H Schwartz, Andrew G Georgiadis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

2 authors.

Michael H SchwartzOrthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Minneapolis, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-7413
Andrew G GeorgiadisOrthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Minneapolis, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3624-8273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical gait analysis (CGA) has historically relied on clinician experience and judgment, leading to modest, stagnant, and unpredictable outcomes. This paper introduces Evidence-Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT), a novel framework leveraging machine learning to support treatment decisions. The core of EB-GAIT consists of two key components: (1) treatment recommendation models, which are models that estimate the probability of specific surgeries based on historical standard-of-practice (SOP), and (2) treatment outcome models, which predict changes in patient characteristics following treatment or natural history. Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), we developed and validated treatment recommendation models for 12 common surgeries that account for more than 95% of the surgery recorded in our CGA center's database. These models demonstrated high balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. We used Shapley values for the models to enhances interpretability and allow clinicians and patients to understand the factors driving treatment recommendations. We also developed treatment outcome models for over 20 common outcome measures. These models were found to be unbiased, with reliable prediction intervals and accuracy comparable to experimental measurement error. We illustrated the application of EB-GAIT through a case study, showcasing its utility in providing treatment recommendations and outcome predictions. We then use simulations to show that combining recommendation and outcome models offers the possibility to improve outcomes for treated limbs, maintain outcomes for untreated limbs, and reduce the number of surgeries performed. For example, under the counterfactual situation where femoral derotation osteotomies are administered only when they align with historical standard of practice (> 50% probability of surgery) and are predicted to improve the Gait Deviation Index (change > 7.5 points), the model predicts a 11 percentage point reduction in surgeries (26% limbs currently, 15% limbs simulated), a 6 point improvement in Gait Deviation Index among treated limbs (6 currently, 12 simulated), and no change in Gait Deviation Index for untreated limbs (2 currently, 2 simulated). EB-GAIT represents a significant step toward precision medicine in CGA, offering a promising tool to enhance treatment outcomes and patient care. The EB-GAIT approach addresses the limitations of the conventional CGA interpretation method, offering a more structured and data-driven decision-making process. EB-GAIT is not intended to replace clinical judgment but to supplement it, providing clinicians with a second opinion grounded in historical data and predictive analytics. While the models perform well, their effectiveness is constrained by historical variability in treatment decisions and the inherent complexity of patient outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining model inputs, incorporating surgical details, and pooling data from multiple centers to improve generalizability.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingGaitGait AnalysisBayes TheoremHumansMachine LearningTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40729395
PMCPMC12306754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.