ArticleNPJ Parkinson's disease2026
Deep learning for freezing of gait assessment using inertial measurement units: a multicentre validation study.
Article in NPJ Parkinson's disease, 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.
- A multi-level annotated sensor dataset of gait freezing manifestations and severity in Parkinson's disease.Scientific data · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Video annotation is the gold standard for assessing Freezing of Gait (FOG) in Parkinsonian disorders, but it is time-consuming. Deep learning (DL)-based assessment of FOG using inertial measurement units ameliorates this problem but poses challenges. Particularly, the large heterogeneity between patients and assessment methods potentially affects detection performance between independent cohorts. To evaluate heterogeneity effects, we developed a DL model on a local cohort (85 participants; 2043 trials) and validated it across six external cohorts (256 participants; 1058 trials). Model-expert agreement on the percentage-of-time-frozen was strong locally (ICC = 0.886 [0.79, 0.90]) but reduced in external cohorts (ICC = 0.562 ± 0.141). Fine-tuning the DL model with just 50 min of external cohort data improved the ICC to 0.732 ± 0.138, approaching the lower boundary of the inter-rater agreement between two clinical raters using video annotation (ICC = 0.73-0.99). Therefore, while unified standards are still being developed, we propose a human-in-the-loop workflow as an effective intermediary and present a proof-of-concept web-based platform for fine-tuning and expert review ( aidfog.be ).
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.