ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Prediction of gait subtypes in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy using Edinburgh Visual Gait Score.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Early and accurate gait subtype classification in children with spastic bilateral cerebral palsy (CP) is essential for guiding rehabilitation. While three-dimensional gait analysis is limited by cost and accessibility, the Edinburgh Visual Gait Score (EVGS) provides a feasible observational tool. This study evaluates the discriminative value of EVGS-derived features using machine learning to support gait phenotype stratification. Methods: This retrospective study included 40 children with spastic bilateral CP (80 lower limbs). EVGS item-level and subscale scores were extracted from standardized gait videos. Gait patterns were classified into four pathological subtypes by two blinded raters. A Random Forest (RF) classifier was evaluated using 5-fold stratified group cross-validation, with Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) serving as a benchmark. To address within-subject dependency, a sensitivity analysis involving random single-limb sampling was performed. Model performance was assessed using balanced accuracy, macro-averaged F1-score, area under the curve (AUC), and class-specific sensitivity, specificity, precision, recall, and F1-score. Feature importance was analyzed by permutation and Gini metrics. Results: The RF model using item-level features outperformed MLR, achieving a mean balanced accuracy of 0.64 (SD = 0.03) and a macro-AUC of 0.74 (SD = 0.05). Item-level data consistently outperformed aggregated subscale scores. Sensitivity analysis using random single-limb sampling confirmed the robustness of these findings, yielding comparable performance estimates. For class-specific performance, the model achieved moderate discriminative ability for Type 1 (AUC = 0.76) and Type 3 (AUC = 0.69), limited performance for Type 2 (AUC = 0.55) due to feature overlap, and high discriminative ability for Type 4 (AUC = 0.89). Feature importance analysis identified hip peak flexion at swing (Item 13), knee position at terminal swing (Item 10), knee peak extension at stance (Item 9), trunk peak sagittal position (Item 16), and maximum ankle dorsiflexion at swing (Item 7) as key predictors. Conclusion: EVGS item-level features facilitate moderate yet robust gait subtype classification in spastic bilateral CP. The integration of EVGS with machine learning presents a promising adjunctive approach for preliminary assessment, particularly in resource-limited settings; however, external validation is requisite prior to clinical implementation.
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.