ArticleScientific reports2025
Integration of smart insoles for gait assessment in exoskeleton assisted rehabilitation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wearable Technologies for Gait Instability Rehabilitation: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Gear-Driven Plantar Energy Harvester with Integrated Self-Sensing for Human Locomotion Recognition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hybrid Decision-Making Management for Material Selection in the Design of Wearable Pressure-Sensing Orthoses in Neurorehabilitation.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Smart exoskeleton-assisted rehabilitation after fracture surgery: closed-loop control, personalized load management, and integrated telemonitoring.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A robotic exoskeleton enables individuals with limited or no mobility to engage in moderate exercises, thereby promoting physical fitness and overall well-being. However, exoskeletons alone do not provide comprehensive insights into gait pattern monitoring and analysis over time. This study proposes the integration of smart insoles as a cost-effective and non-invasive tool for gait assessment in exoskeleton-assisted rehabilitation. Ten participants, including three unimpaired subjects used only as a reference, one stroke, one spinal cord injury, one traumatic brain injury, and four multiple sclerosis subjects were involved in a 12-week program where weekly rehabilitation exercises were conducted and gait patterns were monitored in three assessment sessions. Gait phases were identified using a Finite State Machine, with transitions guided by predictions from a fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Kinematic and kinetic analyses revealed significant disparities in stride time, stance time, and the trajectories of the centre of pressure. The findings demonstrated that while the exoskeleton enabled participants with limited or no mobility to walk similarly to unimpaired individuals, the use of smart insoles identified notable differences in their gait patterns. These differences could be traced back to choices in the rehabilitation plan, underscoring the importance of such devices for understanding rehabilitation progress. An acceptability analysis showed that participants found the smart insoles comfortable and expressed a willingness to use them for future rehabilitation. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the potential of smart insoles for the assessment of individuals' rehabilitation progress while using an exoskeleton, laying the groundwork for a system that can support clinicians in developing tailored rehabilitation plans.
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.