ArticleJMIR biomedical engineering2026
Minimal Sensor Configuration for Human Activity Recognition in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis: Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in JMIR biomedical engineering, 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: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) impairs function during activities of daily living (ADL); however, objective functional assessment methods are lacking. Objectively measuring and characterizing functional deficits during ADL can help rehabilitation specialists target the activities in which patients experience the greatest difficulties. To characterize daily living function, ADL must first be accurately identified. Human activity recognition (HAR) models based on wearable sensor measurements, such as inertial measurement units (IMUs), have been implemented in individuals with various functional impairments but not yet in people with end-stage hip OA. In addition, the balance between HAR accuracy and wearability, which is crucial for patients' acceptance, remains unclear. Finally, to assess deficits of pathological populations, comparison with asymptomatic controls is necessary. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the minimal accurate IMU configuration for HAR, from 8 to 1 IMU, in patients with hip OA and asymptomatic controls for mobility-related activities. Methods: Data from 20 patients and 9 controls were included. Participants completed a tour of ADL in the hospital vicinity while equipped with 8 IMUs. Activities included gait on flat ground, gait up and down a ramp, stair ascent/descent, turns, sitting up/down, and static sitting. Bidirectional gated recurrent unit models were trained to classify ADL based on 3D accelerations and angular velocities of multiple IMU configurations. Model accuracy was assessed on test sets of patient and control data using the Cohen Kappa( κ). Results: The resulting κ values were 0.95 for 8 IMUs, 0.93 for 4 IMUs, 0.90 for 2 IMUs, and 0.79 for 1 IMU. The accuracy was higher for controls than for patients. The best 2-IMU configurations were 2 shanks and 2 feet, and the best single-IMU configuration was the shank. Conclusions: Reducing the number of IMUs from 8 to 2 showed only a minimal decrease in κ, suggesting that minimal IMU setups could be as accurate as larger setups. Regarding gait detection, a single IMU was sufficient to reach very high accuracy (κ≥0.90). The single pelvic IMU showed the lowest accuracy for gait while still reaching high accuracy (κ>0.65). These results underline the potential of single-IMU or 2-IMU configurations to recognize mobility activities under semistandardized conditions. However, given the small sample size, these findings should be validated in larger and more heterogeneous hip OA cohorts before any clinical application can be considered.
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.