ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Wearable Sensor-Derived Gait Parameters Across Self-Reported Physical Activity Levels in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis and Healthy Controls: Pilot Cross-Sectional Validation 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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer scalable, objective gait assessment, but detailed stride-level validation against motion capture and their ability to reflect physical activity (PA)-related gait differences in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remain incompletely characterized. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the technical validity of foot-mounted IMU-derived gait parameters compared with optical motion capture in individuals with KOA and healthy controls. As a secondary exploratory aim, we assessed whether IMU-derived gait parameters differed across self-reported PA levels. Methods: In this pilot cross-sectional validation study, 20 participants (KOA: n=10, 50%; healthy controls: n=10, 50%) completed 3 standardized walking conditions (self-paced, fast-paced, and endurance-equivalent). IMU-derived gait parameters were compared with motion capture at the stride level (≥5000 strides) using Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute error, root mean square error, and Bland-Altman analysis. Participants completed the Stanford Brief Activity Survey to categorize PA level. Secondary analyses emphasized effect sizes and 95% CIs given the pilot design. Feasibility was assessed by protocol completion, data completeness, and tolerability. Results: IMU-derived gait speed demonstrated strong agreement with motion capture (r=0.99; ICC=0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99; mean absolute error=0.07 m/s; bias=0.01 m/s; 95% limits of agreement -0.14 to 0.16 m/s). Stride length and cadence showed similarly high agreement (ICC range 0.96-0.97). All participants completed the protocol with minimal adverse events. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants reporting higher PA demonstrated directionally faster gait speed and longer stride length, with small-to-moderate effect sizes, whereas inactive participants exhibited higher stance-related rhythm parameters. Conclusions: Foot-mounted IMUs demonstrated strong stride-level agreement with motion capture across walking conditions, supporting technical validity in both KOA and healthy populations. Exploratory findings suggest that wearable-derived gait parameters may reflect activity-related differences; however, larger longitudinal studies are required to confirm these preliminary signals.
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.