ArticleScientific reports2026
Human-centered evaluation of statistical parametric mapping and explainable machine learning for outlier detection in plantar pressure data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plantar pressure mapping is essential in clinical diagnostics and sports science, yet large heterogeneous datasets often contain outliers from technical errors or procedural inconsistencies. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) provides interpretable analyses but is sensitive to alignment and its capacity for robust outlier detection remains unclear. This study compares an SPM approach with an explainable machine learning (ML) approach to establish transparent quality-control pipelines for plantar pressure datasets. Data from multiple centers were annotated by expert consensus and enriched with synthetic outliers resulting in 798 valid samples and 2000 outliers. We evaluated (i) a non-parametric, registration-dependent SPM approach and (ii) a convolutional neural network (CNN), explained using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Performance was assessed via nested cross-validation; explanation quality via a semantic differential survey with domain experts. The ML model reached high accuracy and outperformed SPM, which misclassified clinically meaningful variations and missed true outliers (Matthews Correlation Coefficient: ML = 0.96 ± 0.01; SPM = 0.78 ± 0.02). Experts perceived both SPM and SHAP explanations as clear, useful, and trustworthy, though SPM was assessed less complex. These findings highlight the complementary potential of SPM and explainable ML as approaches for automated outlier detection in plantar pressure data, and underscore the importance of explainability in translating complex model outputs into interpretable insights that can effectively inform decision-making.
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.