ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Rethinking the Defaults: Exploring Sample Entropy Parameters for Human Movement Data.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sample Entropy (SampEn) is widely used to quantify the predictability of movement behavior. However, the conventional values for its parameters-embedding dimension and tolerance-were originally developed for discrete and stationary physiological signals like heart inter-beat intervals and may not be optimal for smooth, nonstationary, and cyclic data such as gait kinematics. This study systematically evaluated a broad parameter grid to identify values that maximize SampEn's sensitivity to age-related differences in gait kinematics. We analyzed time series of the right thigh segment angle collected from 2199 overground walking trials across young, middle, and older adults. SampEn was computed on both raw and time-normalized time series. The parameter sweep was performed in two steps: a coarse-scale analysis (m ≈ 1-100% gait cycle; r = 0.05-0.5 standard deviation), followed by a fine-scale analysis (m ≈ 2-20% gait cycle; r = 0.05-0.15 standard deviation). Effect sizes from linear mixed-effects models revealed that conventional parameter values yielded only small-to-moderate effects, whereas time-normalized time series with m = 10% of the gait cycle and r = 0.10 standard deviation led to large group effects. Additional analyses confirmed that the large group effects observed with those values were not sample-specific, suggesting robustness of our results. These findings demonstrate that careful parameter selection, grounded on biomechanically meaningful timescales, improves SampEn's ability to capture inter-group variability in gait. Although SampEn remains a powerful tool for studying human movement variability, researchers should rethink the inherited defaults and tailor parameter choices to the temporal structure of the data in hand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41946864What 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.