ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Video-Based Gait Assessment Using Machine Learning to Classify Age and Sex in Low-Resource Settings: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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.
- Noninvasive Prediction of Significant Hepatic Injury in Treatment-Naïve Children with Chronic HBV Infection.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGait assessment is an important tool for evaluating health risks in older adults but remains underused in low-resource settings. We explored the feasibility of using a low-cost, simple walking protocol with smartphone video capture to extract health-related gait signals by classifying sex and age. Sex and age are fundamental biological factors linked to most health- and aging-related outcomes. Establishing baseline classification performance provides justification for future exploration of more complex health-related conditions using this protocol.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether pose parameters derived from smartphone-based gait videos can be used by machine learning models to classify age and sex.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 155 participants (Thailand: n=59, 38.1%; India: n=96, 61.9%). Participants performed a simple walking protocol while being recorded using smartphones. Pose estimation was conducted using the MediaPipe algorithm to extract 109 features related to joint distances, angles, and walking speed. For feasibility assessment, we calculated the proportion of recordings for which pose estimation could be extracted. Elastic-net logistic regression and histogram-based gradient boosting classifiers were used for analysis. Model performance was evaluated using 5-fold cross-validation. Outcomes were sex (male vs female) and age group (aged<65 vs ≥65 y).
resultsPose parameters were successfully extracted from 145 (93.5%) of the 155 video recordings. Among the 145 participants, 94 (64.8%) were female, and 55 (37.9%) were aged 65 years or older. The 2 analytic models demonstrated comparable performance. Sex classification achieved a maximum mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.90 (SD 0.06), whereas age classification achieved a maximum mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.70 (SD 0.09). Classification performance was primarily influenced by the number of features used, clothing characteristics, and the quality of pose estimation.
conclusionsThis simple smartphone-based gait assessment protocol was able to extract meaningful pose parameters and classify biological features (age and sex). Further studies are warranted to evaluate its potential utility for disease screening, risk stratification, and longitudinal health monitoring.
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.