ArticleClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2026
Automated gait classification: Comparison of automated algorithms to expert classification.
Article in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 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
backgroundAccurate classification of gait patterns in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is critical for guiding treatment but requires expert interpretation of data. Automated methods have potential to improve consistency and scalability; however, clinically meaningful automated tools are limited. This work aimed to determine if automated algorithms based on established gait classifications can reproduce expert clinical classification in children with CP.
methodsAn automated MATLAB algorithm was developed to assign gait classifications using two established systems (Rodda & Graham and Rozumalski & Schwartz). A sample of children with CP who met criteria for crouch gait underwent automated classification. Three expert gait analysts independently classified all trials using standardized definitions corresponding to each system. Fleiss's κ quantified inter-rater reliability, while Cohen's κ, weighted κ, percent agreement, and macro F1 scores quantified agreement between each reviewer and the automated classifications.
findingsInter-rater reliability among reviewers was substantial for Rodda & Graham (κ = 0.753), with high agreement between reviewers. Inter-rater reliability among reviewers was moderate for Rozumalski & Schwartz (κ = 0.456) and agreement between raters was lower and more variable, with some classifications demonstrating full disagreement among reviewers.
interpretationAutomated gait classification based on quantitative gait criteria can achieve agreement with gait analysis experts for systems with clear biomechanical boundaries. More complex cluster-based systems yield lower agreement, reflecting inherent ambiguity in cluster overlap. These findings support use of automated tools as reliable, objective ground-truth for large-scale analyses and for training markerless or video-based assessment algorithms aimed at expanding gait evaluation beyond specialized motion laboratories.
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.