ArticleResearch square2026
A Computational Pipeline for Activity Prediction Using Wearable Sensor Data.
Article in Research square, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Wearable sensors enable collection of ground reaction force (GRF) data in real-world settings, but translating these data into meaningful activity classifications remains challenging, particularly for subject-specific monitoring. Results: We present a dataset of wearable GRF measurements from 14 subjects walking across 18 combinations of speed and incline, along with a machine learning pipeline for step-level classification of loading behaviors. Continuous GRF signals were segmented into individual gait cycles and transformed into features using TSFRESH, followed by feature selection and Random Forest classification. Subject-specific models achieved a mean Top-1 accuracy of 0.664 (SD = 0.053), exceeding chance performance (0.056), with Top-2 and Top-3 accuracies of 0.836 and 0.904, respectively. Accuracy remained similar for incline-only classification (0.688 ± 0.030) but increased for speed-only classification (0.903 ± 0.097). Conclusions: These results demonstrate that step-level GRF data can support accurate classification of locomotion-related loading conditions and enable the development of subject-specific models for monitoring individual activity. The dataset and pipeline provide a foundation for future work in wearable biomechanics and personalized analysis of musculoskeletal loading.
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.