ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Extraction of Clinically Relevant Temporal Gait Parameters from IMU Sensors Mimicking the Use of Smartphones.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As populations age and workforces decline, the need for accessible health assessment methods grows. The merging of accessible and affordable sensors such as inertial measurement units (IMUs) and advanced machine learning techniques now enables gait assessment beyond traditional laboratory settings. A total of 52 participants walked at three speeds while carrying a smartphone-sized IMU in natural positions (hand, trouser pocket, or jacket pocket). A previously trained Convolutional Neural Network and Long Short-Term Memory (CNN-LSTM)-based machine learning model predicted gait events, which were then used to calculate stride time, stance time, swing time, and double support time. Stride time predictions were highly accurate (<5% error), while stance and swing times exhibited moderate variability and double support time showed the highest errors (>20%). Despite these variations, moderate-to-strong correlations between the predicted and experimental spatiotemporal gait parameters suggest the feasibility of IMU-based gait tracking in real-world settings. These associations preserved inter-subject patterns that are relevant for detecting gait disorders. Our study demonstrated the feasibility of extracting clinically relevant gait parameters using IMU data mimicking smartphone use, especially parameters with longer durations such as stride time. Robustness across sensor locations and walking speeds supports deep learning on single-IMU data as a viable tool for remote gait monitoring.
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.