Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41258169›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Analytical and clinical validation of step counting method in people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Marcin Straczkiewicz, Katherine M Burke, Kendall T Carney, Narghes Calcagno, Sravan Mandepudi, Alan Premasiri, Fernando G Vieira, James D Berry

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. [Personalized lower-limb gait assessment method based on musculoskeletal modeling and machine learning].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Intrathecal (GActa neuropathologica communications · 2026
    Article
  5. Intrathecal (GbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Marcin StraczkiewiczDepartment of Measurement and Electronics, AGH University of Krakow, Krakow, Poland. mstr@agh.edu.pl.
Katherine M BurkeNeurological Clinical Research Institute and Sean M. Healey & AMG Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kendall T CarneyNeurological Clinical Research Institute and Sean M. Healey & AMG Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Narghes CalcagnoDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroscience, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy.
Sravan MandepudiNeurological Clinical Research Institute and Sean M. Healey & AMG Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Alan PremasiriALS Therapy Development Institute, Watertown, MA, USA.
Fernando G VieiraALS Therapy Development Institute, Watertown, MA, USA.
James D BerryNeurological Clinical Research Institute and Sean M. Healey & AMG Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerometer-based digital measures offer a scalable and low-burden means of quantifying physical function, but existing processing algorithms may not quantify pathological gait correctly. In people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), where gait patterns are slow, variable, and asymmetric, validated tools to quantify mobility are urgently needed. We proposed a step-counting algorithm designed for ankle-worn accelerometers that leverage wavelet-based decomposition to quantify heel strikes under heterogeneous gait patterns. We validated this method using five datasets comprising healthy individuals and those with ALS in controlled and semi-controlled activities, and we performed clinical validation in a free-living cohort of 305 people with ALS. We tested our method for accuracy in detecting steps and recognizing walking activity. Reference labels used for analytical validation were obtained from annotated studies or video-based ground truth. Step counting accuracy was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis while clinical validity was evaluated by comparing step counts to gross motor functioning on the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R). Walking recognition was robust across walking conditions and body types; sensitivity ranged from 0.94 to 0.98, and specificity exceeded 0.95 across all evaluated datasets. The mean step counting bias was minimal (e.g., 0.44 steps), and the 95% limits of agreement were narrow (LoA = [-5.90, 5.40]) relative to reference standards, including video-annotated ground truth. Clinical validation indicated substantial differences between groups with various levels of gait impairment, e.g., participants who reported "walks with assist" on the ALSFRS-R accumulated a mean of 1283 (95% CI 1063, 1503) steps/day, while those reporting "normal" walking covered 3984 (95% CI 3537, 4432) steps/day. Our study covered analytical and clinical validation of a step-counting method developed for ankle-worn accelerometers and demonstrated its applicability to pathological gait. The method provides accurate quantification of walking activity in controlled and free-living environments, supporting its use as a digital endpoint in ALS research.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAmyotrophic Lateral SclerosisGaitWalkingAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsALSFRS-RAssistive deviceDigital Health TechnologiesGaitMotor neuron disease

Identifiers

PMID41258169
PMCPMC12630758

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.