ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Gait analysis reveals new outcome measures for monitoring disease progression in individuals with late-onset Pompe disease.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLate-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) presents with progressive muscle weakness, often leading to functional impairment that is challenging to monitor with conventional assessments. This study aims to develop and validate novel gait-based outcome measures for monitoring disease progression in individuals with LOPD.
methodsLongitudinal study with genetically confirmed LOPD patients and age-and gait velocity-matched healthy controls that were assessed over a two-year period using the Ephion Mobility system, which integrates inertial sensors, plantar pressure insoles, and surface electromyography. All participants completed a free walking test (10-15 m at self-selected pace) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Differences in gait features were identified using a three-stage feature selection framework that includes linear mixed-effects model, ElasticNet-regularized and bootstrap analysis. To explore intra-group variability within the LOPD cohort, we performed a clustering analysis. Based on the selected features and their weighted temporal changes, we developed a Pompe Mobility-Derived Progression Index (Pompe-MDPI) by training a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) to discriminate between control and LOPD data. We calculated the Minimum Clinically Important Difference and compared its performance against the 6MWT distance.
results24 LOPD and 39 healthy controls were included in the study. 46 gait features were found to significantly differentiate individuals with LOPD from controls (Holm-corrected p < 0.05), comprising 16 from trunk and pelvis joints, 18 from lower limb joints, 4 from force profiles, and 8 from EMG.Hierarchical clustering analysis revealed two distinct subgroups within the LOPD cohort, based on nine gait features. The computed Pompe-MDPI successfully discriminated between LOPD and healthy controls (AUC = 0.95), outperforming the 6MWT distance (AUC = 0.84). The Pompe-MDPI was also strongly associated with the 6MWT (p < 0.0001) and demonstrated significant change over time in the LOPD group (p = 0.02).
conclusionsThe Pompe Mobility-Derived Progression Index (Pompe-MDPI) was developed and validated as a sensitive biomarker of disease progression. Longitudinal analysis demonstrated that Pompe-MDPI captured gait deterioration over one year, outperforming traditional measures like the six-minute walk test in sensitivity. These findings support the use of wearable gait analysis as a clinically meaningful, scalable tool for monitoring motor function in LOPD, with implications for both patient care and therapeutic trials.
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.