ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Recognition of Human Gait Under Asymmetric Loading.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Biometric recognition of human gait is a promising, non-invasive method for the identification of people that does not require their engagement. Existing solutions mainly focus on the identification effectiveness under laboratory conditions, frequently overlooking factors that disrupt the gait of test subjects. The present work considers the issue of identifying a person on the basis of ground reaction forces in cases where their gait is disrupted through asymmetric loading. This paper proposes a solution based on ensemble classifiers utilizing various types of deep neural networks as base classifiers. To further increase the ability to generalize base models, data augmentation was used. The proposed solution was tested on a sample of 215 people (7351 gait cycles) and two strategies for combining classifier decisions. The accuracy results obtained, ranging between 99.8, 98.55, and 98.85% correct recognitions depending on the scenario analyzed, are very good and significantly exceed other methods presented in the literature to date.
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.