ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
Performance of a Personalized Smart Cueing Device to Detect Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of a Personalized Smart Cueing Device to Detect Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- User Experiences of the Cue2walk Smart Cueing Device for Freezing of Gait in People with Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
External cueing is a proven strategy to overcome freezing of gait (FoG) in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, manual activation of cueing is often too late and continuous cueing may be perceived as burdensome. Therefore, the Cue2walk, a medical device for FoG detection and provision of external cues, was developed. This study aimed to determine (1) the performance to detect FoG of the Cue2walk device and (2) the effect of personal optimization on its performance to detect FoG. Twenty-four people with PD and daily FoG completed a gait circuit including FoG-triggering tasks in their own home environment, while wearing a Cue2walk device to collect acceleration data. Two experienced independent raters rated the occurrence of FoG using video annotation. The data set of each participant was split into a training (60%) and test set (40%), obtaining an even distribution of FoG episodes. The training set was used to personalize the settings of the algorithm. The test set was subsequently used to assess the performance to detect FoG of the standard and personalized setting by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and latency (time between onset and detection of FoG). Sensitivity was 28.2% ± 31.6%, specificity was 96.0% ± 4.1%, and latency was 1.9 s ± 2.4 s on the test set with the standard settings. With personalized settings, sensitivity was 89.1% ± 14.8%, specificity was 93.3% ± 5.5%, and latency was 1.6 s ± 2.2 s. Sensitivity was significantly higher for the personalized settings (p < 0.001), while latency and specificity remained similar. The Cue2walk device showed good performance to detect FoG when using the personalized settings. The clinical effectiveness needs to be determined in future research.
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.